WM Fotheringham & Son v. The British Limousin Cattle Society Ltd [2004] ScotCS 93 (08 April 2004)

WM Fotheringham & Son v. The British Limousin Cattle Society Ltd [2004] ScotCS 93 (08 April 2004)

The defenders, even as an officially recognised breeders' association, do not exercise a jurisdiction or power of decision conferred by the State that would create a tri-partite relationship subjecting their decisions on registration fees and requirements to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session. The action is a claim for damages for breach of statutory duty under competition law, not a challenge to the validity of the byelaws, and does not invoke the supervisory jurisdiction directly or indirectly. Therefore, the action is competent as an ordinary action.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 93
Parties
Pursuers and Respondents: W M Fotheringham & Son; Defenders and Reclaimers: The British Limousin Cattle Society Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Civil Action for Damages Under Competition Act 1998 / Interlocutory Appeal on Competency; Proof Before Answer Allowed at First Instance
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of Temporary Lord Ordinary adhered to; proof before answer allowed.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Dominant Position, Competency of Action, Supervisory Jurisdiction, Judicial Review, Reparation for Economic Loss
Competition Law Civil Procedure Abuse of Dominant Position Competency of Action Supervisory Jurisdiction Judicial Review Reparation for Economic Loss

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W M Fotheringham & Son

Pursuers and Respondents

The British Limousin Cattle Society Ltd

Defenders and Reclaimers

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Civil Action for Damages Under Competition Act 1998 / Interlocutory Appeal on Competency; Proof Before Answer Allowed at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the action for damages under section 18 of the Competition Act 1998 is incompetent as an indirect invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session and should have been brought by petition for judicial review instead of ordinary action.

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders, even as an officially recognised breeders' association, do not exercise a jurisdiction or power of decision conferred by the State that would create a tri-partite relationship subjecting their decisions on registration fees and requirements to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session. The action is a claim for damages for breach of statutory duty under competition law, not a challenge to the validity of the byelaws, and does not invoke the supervisory jurisdiction directly or indirectly. Therefore, the action is competent as an ordinary action.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of Temporary Lord Ordinary adhered to; proof before answer allowed.

Orders

  • Refusal of reclaiming motion (appeal) by defenders
  • Adherence to interlocutor repelling plea to competency