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)

There was no evidence of an agreement or concerted practice between Pfizer and the other distributors or between Pfizer and its international affiliate. The de-listing of Chanelle was a unilateral act by Pfizer. The object of the de-listing was not anti-competitive per se, and no anti-competitive effect was proven on the balance of probabilities. The distribution system did not constitute a selective distribution network operated in a discriminatory manner. No abuse of dominance was established except possibly in relation to Synulox, but no breach was found. No appreciable inter-State effect was established.

Citation
[1998] 1 ILRM 161
Parties
Plaintiff: Chanelle; First Defendant: Pfizer Animal Health; Second Defendant: Pfizer International Inc.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Competition Law Action / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Selective Distribution Systems, Concerted Practices, Abuse of Dominance, Anti Competitive Agreements, Rebates and Loyalty Schemes
Competition Law Commercial Law European Union 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 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chanelle

Plaintiff

Pfizer Animal Health

First Defendant

Pfizer International Inc.

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Competition Law Action / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Pfizer's de-listing of Chanelle constitutes an anti-competitive agreement or concerted practice under Section 4 of the Competition Act 1991 and Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome
  2. 2 Whether Pfizer holds a dominant position and abused it under Section 5 of the Competition Act 1991
  3. 3 Whether the de-listing has appreciable inter-State effect under EU law

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence of an agreement or concerted practice between Pfizer and the other distributors or between Pfizer and its international affiliate. The de-listing of Chanelle was a unilateral act by Pfizer. The object of the de-listing was not anti-competitive per se, and no anti-competitive effect was proven on the balance of probabilities. The distribution system did not constitute a selective distribution network operated in a discriminatory manner. No abuse of dominance was established except possibly in relation to Synulox, but no breach was found. No appreciable inter-State effect was established.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed

Orders

  • No injunction granted
  • Defendants' undertakings to supply Chanelle until determination of action discharged