Royal Mail PLC v Office of Communications & Anor [2021] EWCA Civ 669 (07 May 2021)

Royal Mail PLC v Office of Communications & Anor [2021] EWCA Civ 669 (07 May 2021)

The Court of Appeal held that neither Ofcom nor the Tribunal erred in law by not treating the AEC test as determinative or highly relevant. The AEC test is not a legal prerequisite for finding abuse of dominance, especially in cases of discriminatory pricing. Ofcom gave adequate consideration to Royal Mail's AEC...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] EWCA Civ 669
Parties
Appellant: Royal Mail PLC; First Respondent: Office of Communications; Second Respondent: Whistl UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Competition Appeal Tribunal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Dominant Position, Discriminatory Pricing, As Efficient Competitor Test, Margin Squeeze, Foreclosure, Section 18 Competition Act 1998, Article 102 TFEU
Competition Law European Union Law Abuse of Dominant Position Discriminatory Pricing As Efficient Competitor Test Margin Squeeze Foreclosure Section 18 Competition Act 1998 +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royal Mail PLC

Appellant

Office of Communications

First Respondent

Whistl UK Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Competition Appeal Tribunal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Ofcom and Tribunal erred in law by not treating the 'as efficient competitor' (AEC) test as determinative or highly relevant in assessing anti-competitive effects of Royal Mail's pricing practices
  2. 2 Whether Ofcom gave adequate consideration to Royal Mail's AEC analysis during the administrative process

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that neither Ofcom nor the Tribunal erred in law by not treating the AEC test as determinative or highly relevant. The AEC test is not a legal prerequisite for finding abuse of dominance, especially in cases of discriminatory pricing. Ofcom gave adequate consideration to Royal Mail's AEC analysis, and the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence was within its specialist expertise. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No error of law found in Tribunal's reasoning or Ofcom's consideration of AEC test
  • Royal Mail's appeal rejected