The following Competition practice note Produced in partnership with Suzanne Rab of Serle Court provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
The 'essential facilities’ doctrine states that the refusal by a dominant company to grant assess to an essential facility that it controls constitutes an abuse of a dominant position if the refusal has significant restrictive effects on competition. Essential facilities typically include infrastructure such as an airport, port or energy transportation pipeline which is deemed essential for a competitor to compete in a downstream, related or neighbouring market.
There are specific issues arising in cases of refusal to license or grant access to intellectual property rights (IPRs) or propriety information which are not covered here.
The definition and scope of an 'essential facility' is difficult and often controversial. The basic principle is that an essential facility is typically something that is owned or controlled by a vertically integrated dominant company where independent companies need access to the facility in order to provide their own products or services.
The essential facilities doctrine has its origins in US antitrust law where it has been the subject of controversy. The European Commission first began to deploy the terminology in 1992 in the Sealink/B&I case (see below), although the Court of Justice has never formally used the term. However, a large part of the debate around the refusal to supply or the refusal to license has been expressed in terms of concepts which are very
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
When is quantum meruit and quantum valebat relevant?Claims in quantum meruit (value of services) and quantum valebat (value of goods) arise in diverse situations ranging from where contractual terms are silent on issues of payment to where there is no contract at all (Serck v Drake & Scull).General
Coronavirus (COVID-19): The guidance detailing normal practice set out in this Practice Note may be affected by measures concerning process and procedure in the civil courts that have been introduced as a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. For guidance, see Practice Note: Coronavirus
You may apply simplified customer due diligence (SDD) measures in relation to particular business relationships or transactions which you determine present a low risk of money laundering or terrorist financing, having taken into account:•your organisation-wide risk assessment—see Practice Note:
Commercial Property Standard Enquiries (CPSEs) are industry standard pre-contract enquiries used in commercial property transactions. CPSEs are endorsed by the British Property Federation and are free to use. The CPSEs include specific environmental enquiries at enquiry 15 and there are several
0330 161 1234
To view our latest legal guidance content,sign-in to Lexis®PSL or register for a free trial.