BT plc v Ofcom, BSkyB, FAPL and others (Pay-TV sports appeals) [Archived]
BT plc v Ofcom, BSkyB, FAPL and others (Pay-TV sports appeals) [Archived]

The following Competition guidance note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • BT plc v Ofcom, BSkyB, FAPL and others (Pay-TV sports appeals) [Archived]
  • Case facts
  • Timetable
  • Commentary
  • Relevant/related cases

CASE HUB

ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 17 February 2014; it is no longer maintained.

See further, timetable, commentary and relevant/related cases

Case facts

Outline British Telecom's appeal (supported by the Office of Communication (Ofcom)) to the Court of Appeal regarding the judgment of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) finding that Ofcom's decision imposing a wholesale must-offer obligation on British Sky Broadcasting was unfounded and ordering it be set aside.

On 17 February 2014, the Court of Appeal ruled that Ofcom had acted legally when it ordered BSkyB to wholesale its channels to other providers and that the CAT erred in law in not properly disposing of some of the issues that were before it on appeal.

Main parties • British Telecommunications plc (BT)
• British Sky Broadcasting Limited (BSkyB)
• Virgin Media Limited (Virgin)
• The Football Association Premier League (FAPL)
• Office of Communication (Ofcom)
• Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT)

BSkyB is the holding company of a number of subsidiaries which are active in a variety of sectors in the UK and Ireland, namely:
(i) creation and wholesale supply of TV channels;
(ii) retail distribution of Pay-TV channels;
(iii) provision of Pay-TV