Arriva Scotland West Ltd v. Glasgow Airport Ltd [2011] ScotCS CSOH_69 (21 April 2011)

Arriva Scotland West Ltd v. Glasgow Airport Ltd [2011] ScotCS CSOH_69 (21 April 2011)

Arriva stated an arguable case of breach of competition law, but the prima facie case was not compelling. Complex issues of mixed fact and law, particularly regarding market definition and essential facilities, require substantive evidence. GAL pleaded objective justification based on capacity constraints. The balance of convenience did not favour granting interim interdict, as Arriva's losses were commercially foreseeable and GAL would suffer disruption if interdict were granted.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSOH_69
Parties
Pursuer: Arriva Scotland West Limited; Defender: Glasgow Airport Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
21 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Commercial Motion for Interim Interdict / Interim Relief Application
Outcome
motion for interim interdict refused
Legal Topics
Abuse of Dominant Position, Essential Facilities Doctrine, Interim Interdict, Market Definition, Balance of Convenience
Competition Law Commercial Law Abuse of Dominant Position Essential Facilities Doctrine Interim Interdict Market Definition Balance of Convenience

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arriva Scotland West Limited

Pursuer

Glasgow Airport Ltd

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Motion for Interim Interdict / Interim Relief Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Glasgow Airport Ltd abused a dominant position by excluding Arriva from the public transport zone (PTZ) under section 18 of the Competition Act 1998
  2. 2 Whether the PTZ constitutes an essential facility and if refusal of access is objectively justified
  3. 3 Whether Arriva has a compelling prima facie case for interim interdict

Ratio Decidendi

Arriva stated an arguable case of breach of competition law, but the prima facie case was not compelling. Complex issues of mixed fact and law, particularly regarding market definition and essential facilities, require substantive evidence. GAL pleaded objective justification based on capacity constraints. The balance of convenience did not favour granting interim interdict, as Arriva's losses were commercially foreseeable and GAL would suffer disruption if interdict were granted.

Court Disposition

motion for interim interdict refused

Orders

  • Arriva's motion for interim interdict refused
  • Glasgow Airport Ltd awarded expenses occasioned by the motion