UK private competition actions

Companies or individuals who have suffered loss as a result of a breach (or alleged breach) of competition law may be able bring an action for damages in the UK against the party (or parties) that engaged in the anti-competitive behaviour.

Damages actions can either be 'stand-alone' (where there is no infringement decision by a competition authority) or 'follow-on' (relying on an infringement decision issued by a competition authority).

For detail on the UK damages regime, see UK damages actions.

In addition, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and sectoral regulators with concurrent competition powers can approve voluntary redress schemes, under which an undertaking that has breached competition law can voluntarily compensate any party that has suffered loss through the anti-competitive behaviour. Whilst the approval of a redress scheme does not of itself prevent a potential claimant from bringing a private action, the rules of a scheme can restrict potential claimants who accept redress under the scheme from bringing a damages claim with respect to that loss. See further, CMA behavioural investigation process — Redress schemes.

NOTE—for a summary of the impact of Brexit on

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Competition News

UK Competition law—daily round-up (09/12/2024)

A round-up of UK competition law developments, including (amongst other things) the Department of Business and Trade publishes subsidy control principles assessment guides for public authorities.

UK Competition Appeal Tribunal issues rare judgment on application of competition law to online sales restrictions (Up & Running v Deckers)

Competition analysis: In this judgment, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) examined the compatibility with UK competition law of action taken by a brand operating a selective distribution system (Deckers) against one of its authorised retailers (UP & Running) to prevent it selling the brand’s products online at a discount. The judgment provides important guidance on the extent to which a brand may exercise its discretion when deciding when to eject a retailer from its selective distribution system; the steps that a brand can legitimately take to control a retailer’s online sales; and the extent to which a brand can manage sales of out of season products to avoid its retail margins being undermined. The case is also an interesting example of the CAT’s fast-track procedure in action, with the case proceeding from issuance of claim to final judgment in only a year. The CAT’s conclusion that the brand’s actions had infringed competition law, by unlawfully restricting the retailer’s ability to set its own prices and to use the internet, followed well-established precedent, as well as extensive EU and UK guidance. In reaching this conclusion, the CAT took care to emphasise that Deckers infringed the law because its selective distribution system was ‘incomplete and flawed in its design and operation’, rather than because selective distribution is inherently anticompetitive. Written by Becket McGrath, a partner at Euclid Law Ltd.