By Mark Tottenham BL in Cooke J No Comments Tags: Competition law, Costs, Criminal law
DPP v. McNicholas [2011] IECCC 2
(Central Criminal Court, Cooke J, 20 December 2011)
Central Criminal Court awards 50% of costs to accused following acquittal on competition law charges. (Full text.)
Competition law – criminal prosecution – charge of entering into anti-competitive agreement – s 3, Competition Act 2002 – not guilty verdict – costs of proceedings – power to award costs of criminal case – Order 99, RSC – discretion of court – Rules More
By Mark Tottenham BL in Cooke J No Comments Tags: Administrative law, Competition law
Island Ferries Teoranta v. Minister for Communications [2011] IEHC 388
(High Court, Cooke J, 18 October 2011)
Court holds that Minister acted ultra vires in imposing a per capita passenger charge on ferry services to the Aran Islands. (Full text.)
Statutory charges on passenger ferry services – Fishery Harbour Centres (Rates and Charges) Order 2003 (S.I. 493/2003) – whether order ultra vires the Minister – whether Minister in breach of competition law in abuse of own dominant position in providing harbour facilities – whether More
By Mark Tottenham BL in Cooke J No Comments Tags: Competition law, Practice and procedure, Rules of evidence, Security for costs
Goode Concrete v. CRH PLC [2010] IEHC 310 (28 July 2011)
High Court (Cooke J) refuses application to strike out allegedly scandalous material on affidavit, but rules that the material was inadmissible on the grounds that it was irrelevant to the issue of security for costs. (Full text.)
Rules of evidence – competition law proceedings – security for costs – application to strike out material on affidavit – allegedly scandalous content – embarrassing material not relevant to issues before court – Order 40, rule 12, Rules of Superior Courts.
Connaughton Road Construction Limited v. Laing O’Rourke Ireland Limited [2009] I.E.H.C. 7
By Mark Tottenham BL in McKechnie J No Comments Tags: Case stated, Competition law, Criminal law
DPP v Hegarty [2011] IESC 32 (28 July 2011)
Supreme Court (McKechnie J, nem diss) finds, by way of consultative case stated from the Circuit Court, that a director or manager of an undertaking could be found guilty of a competition law offence without the undertaking in question being convicted of the offence. (Full text.)
Competition law – consultative case stated – offence by director or manager of prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in trade of gas oil – entry of nolle prosequi against relevant undertakings – whether necessary that undertaking be convicted before the relevant individual could be convicted – s 3(4)(a) Competition (Amendment) Act 1996 – whether a jury capable of finding that the undertaking has committed an offence in the absence of a charge relating to the undertaking -
R. v. Donald [1986] 83 Cr. App. R. 49
A v. Governor of Arbour Hill Prison [2006] 4 I.R. 88
R. v. Dickson [1991] B.C.C. 719
R. v. Ontario Chrysler 1997 Ltd. 1994 CanLII 8758 (ON C.A.)
D.P.P. v. Roseberry Construction Ltd. [2003] 4 I.R. 338
R. v. Cogan [1976] Q.B. 217
A. v. Governor of Arbour Hill Prison [2006] 4 I.R. 88
Cahill v. Sutton [1980] I.R. 269
By Mark Tottenham BL in Cooke J No Comments Tags: Competition law
Medicall Ambulance Ltd -v- H. S. E. [2011] IEHC 76 (Cooke J, 8 March 2011)
High Court declares, by way of preliminary issue, that the HSE is an “undertaking” for the purposes of competition law when engaging in the provision of ambulance services. (Full text.)
Competition law – private ambulance operator – “booking protocol” – regime for allocation of transfers of patients – whether change of regime was ultra vires the respondent – whether abuse of dominant position – whether respondent qualified as “undertaking” – quantity and bulk of activity – whether engaged “for gain”.
Deane and Others v. Voluntary Health Insurance Board [1992] 2 I.R. 319
In re Arthur Average Association for British, Foreign & Colonial Ships (1875) L.R. 10 Ch. App. 542
SAT Fluggesellschalt mbH v. Eurocontrol [1994] E.C.R. 1-43,
Pavel Pavlov and Others v. SPMS [2000] E.C.R.1-6451
Carrigaline Company Limited v. Minister for Transport [1997] 1 I.L.R.M. 241
C-49/07 MOTOE, [2008] E.C.R. 1-4816
Case C-475/99, Ambulanz Glockner v. Landkreis [2001] ECR I-8089
By Mark Tottenham BL in Cooke J No Comments Tags: Competition law
Goode Concrete -v- Cement Roadstone Holdings PLC [2011] IEHC 15 (Cooke J, 20 January 2011)
High Court refuses injunctive relief for alleged anti-competitive practice on the grounds that: i) damages would be an adequate remedy; and ii) that injunctive relief would not be appropriate to circumstances. (Full text.)
Competition Law – sections 4 or 5 of the Competition Act 2002 – Articles 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) – production and supply of ready-mixed concrete – anti-competitive conduct – dominant position held by two companies – whether dominant companies attempted to eliminate competition by reducing prices to uneconomic levels – injunctive relief – whether damages an adequate remedy – whether injunctive relief would re-establish plaintiff’s position in the market.
Campus Oil Limited v. Minister for Energy (No. 2) [1983] I.R. 88.
Curust Financial Services Limited v. Loewe-Lack-Werk [1994] I.R. 450
Leanort Limited v. Southern Chemicals Limited, (High Court, 18 August 1988,)