Chanelle Veterinary Ltd. v. Pfizer (Ireland) Ltd. t/a Pfizer Animal Health [1997] IEHC 136; [1999] 1 IR 365; [1998] 1 ILRM 161 (30th July, 1997)

Chanelle Veterinary Ltd. v. Pfizer (Ireland) Ltd. t/a Pfizer Animal Health [1997] IEHC 136; [1999] 1 IR 365; [1998] 1 ILRM 161 (30th July, 1997)

The court found that Pfizer's decision to de-list Chanelle was a unilateral act and not the result of any agreement or concerted practice with the other distributors or the Brussels affiliate. There was no evidence of positive co-operation, tacit acceptance, or pressure exerted on the other distributors to exclude Chanelle. The distribution system did not amount to a selective distribution system operated in a discriminatory or anti-competitive manner. The object of the de-listing was not anti-competitive of its nature, and no anti-competitive effect was established on the balance of probabilities. Accordingly, there was no breach of Section 4 or Article 85, nor was there abuse of...

Citation
[1997] IEHC 136
Parties
Plaintiff: Chanelle; First Defendant: Pfizer Animal Health (Pfizer); Second Defendant: Second Named Defendant (Pfizer company in Brussels)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Competition Law Action / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
All claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Selective Distribution Systems, Concerted Practices, Abuse of Dominance, Anti Competitive Agreements, Rebates and Loyalty Schemes
Competition Law Commercial Law EU Law Selective Distribution Systems Concerted Practices Abuse of Dominance Anti Competitive Agreements Rebates and Loyalty Schemes

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chanelle

Plaintiff

Pfizer Animal Health (Pfizer)

First Defendant

Second Named Defendant (Pfizer company in Brussels)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Competition Law Action / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the de-listing of Chanelle by Pfizer constituted a prohibited agreement or concerted practice under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 1991 and Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome
  2. 2 Whether Pfizer's conduct amounted to abuse of a dominant position under Section 5 of the Competition Act, 1991
  3. 3 Whether the de-listing had an appreciable effect on trade between Member States

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Pfizer's decision to de-list Chanelle was a unilateral act and not the result of any agreement or concerted practice with the other distributors or the Brussels affiliate. There was no evidence of positive co-operation, tacit acceptance, or pressure exerted on the other distributors to exclude Chanelle. The distribution system did not amount to a selective distribution system operated in a discriminatory or anti-competitive manner. The object of the de-listing was not anti-competitive of its nature, and no anti-competitive effect was established on the balance of probabilities. Accordingly, there was no breach of Section 4 or Article 85, nor was there abuse of...

Court Disposition

All claims dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claims under Section 4 and Section 5 of the Competition Act, 1991 and Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome are dismissed
  • No order as to costs specified in the provided text