Chanelle Veterinary Ltd. v. Pfizer (Ireland) Ltd. t/a Pfizer Animal Health [1997] IEHC 88 (5th June, 1997)

Chanelle Veterinary Ltd. v. Pfizer (Ireland) Ltd. t/a Pfizer Animal Health [1997] IEHC 88 (5th June, 1997)

The Court held that Chanelle had established a prima facie case that there was a concerted practice between the first Defendant and the nominated distributors, and between the Defendants, to de-list Chanelle, with the object and effect of restricting competition. The Court found sufficient evidence to require the Defendants to answer the claims under Section 4(1) of the Competition Act, 1991 and Article 85, and in relation to abuse of dominance in the Synulox market under Section 5(1) and Article 86. However, the Court dismissed the claims of abuse of dominance in the four other identified markets and in the overall animal health products market due to insufficient evidence of dominance.

Citation
[1997] IEHC 88
Parties
Plaintiff: Chanelle; First Defendant: Pfizer Animal Health (Irish subsidiary of Pfizer International Inc.); Second Defendant: Pfizer International Inc.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Application to Dismiss All Claims / Interlocutory Judgment on Prima Facie Case
Outcome
Application to dismiss all claims refused in part and granted in part
Legal Topics
Anti Competitive Agreements, Abuse of Dominant Position, Selective Distribution Systems, Refusal to Supply, Market Definition, Inter State Trade Effect
Competition Law Commercial Law European Union Law Anti Competitive Agreements Abuse of Dominant Position Selective Distribution Systems Refusal to Supply Market Definition +1 more

Case Brief

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chanelle

Plaintiff

Pfizer Animal Health (Irish subsidiary of Pfizer International Inc.)

First Defendant

Pfizer International Inc.

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Dismiss All Claims / Interlocutory Judgment on Prima Facie Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an agreement or concerted practice between the Defendants and/or with nominated distributors to de-list Chanelle
  2. 2 Whether the de-listing had the object or effect of restricting or distorting competition contrary to Section 4(1) of the Competition Act, 1991 and Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants held a dominant position in relevant markets and abused that position contrary to Section 5(1) of the Competition Act, 1991 and Article 86 of the Treaty of Rome

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that Chanelle had established a prima facie case that there was a concerted practice between the first Defendant and the nominated distributors, and between the Defendants, to de-list Chanelle, with the object and effect of restricting competition. The Court found sufficient evidence to require the Defendants to answer the claims under Section 4(1) of the Competition Act, 1991 and Article 85, and in relation to abuse of dominance in the Synulox market under Section 5(1) and Article 86. However, the Court dismissed the claims of abuse of dominance in the four other identified markets and in the overall animal health products market due to insufficient evidence of dominance.

Court Disposition

Application to dismiss all claims refused in part and granted in part

Orders

  • Claims relating to anti-competitive agreement/concerted practice and abuse of dominance in the Synulox market to proceed to trial; Defendants required to answer these claims.
  • Claims relating to abuse of dominance in four other identified markets and the overall animal health products market dismissed.