Somerfield PLC v Competition Commission [2006] CAT 4 (13 February 2006)

Somerfield PLC v Competition Commission [2006] CAT 4 (13 February 2006)

The Tribunal held that the Competition Commission acted within its statutory powers and followed a lawful, reasonable, and evidence-based process in determining the specific stores to be divested and in initially excluding LADs as potential purchasers. The Commission's approach was consistent with its published guidance and the need to remedy the substantial lessening of competition. The Tribunal found no error of law, irrationality, or procedural unfairness in the Commission's decision-making.

Citation
[2006] CAT 4
Parties
Applicant: Somerfield PLC; Respondent: Competition Commission
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
13 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under Section 120 of the Enterprise Act 2002 / Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Merger Control, Judicial Review, Remedies in Competition Cases, Divestiture Orders, Market Definition
Competition Law Administrative Law Merger Control Judicial Review Remedies in Competition Cases Divestiture Orders Market Definition

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

Parties

Somerfield PLC

Applicant

Competition Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under Section 120 of the Enterprise Act 2002 / Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Competition Commission acted lawfully and reasonably in requiring Somerfield to divest specific acquired stores rather than allowing choice of store for divestment
  2. 2 Whether the exclusion of Limited Assortment Discounters (LADs) as potential purchasers in the initial divestiture period was lawful and reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the Competition Commission acted within its statutory powers and followed a lawful, reasonable, and evidence-based process in determining the specific stores to be divested and in initially excluding LADs as potential purchasers. The Commission's approach was consistent with its published guidance and the need to remedy the substantial lessening of competition. The Tribunal found no error of law, irrationality, or procedural unfairness in the Commission's decision-making.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed. No order quashing or remitting the Competition Commission's decision.