BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Competition Appeals Tribunal


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Competition Appeals Tribunal >> Bettercare Group Ltd v The Director General of Fair Trading [2001] CAT 6 (20 December 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/CAT/2001/6.html
Cite as: [2001] CAT 6, [2003] ECC 40

[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


IN THE COMPETITION APPEALS TRIBUNAL                          Case No. 1006/2/1/01
                                                  The Competition Commission
                                                        Room 309 New Court
                                                               48 Carey Street
                                                                 London WC2

                                                   Thursday 20 December 2001

                                   Before:

                            THE PRESIDENT
                    SIR CHRISTOPHER BELLAMY QC
                             (The Chairman)

                           MR MICHAEL DAVEY
                           MR DAVID SUMMERS

                                 __________

B E T W E E N:

                     BETTERCARE GROUP LIMITED                          Appellant

                                   - and -

             THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FAIR TRADING Respondent


                                 __________

MR JAMES FLYNN (instructed by L'Estrange & Brett Solicitors)
     appeared on behalf of the Appellant.

MR JON TURNER (instructed by the Director, Legal Services,
     Office of Fair Trading) appeared for the Respondent.
                                  __________



                              JUDGEMENT
                               (As approved)




                                        1

                                                                                3-20 pm
1   THE PRESIDENT: We have to rule on certain matters that have arisen
    during this first Case Management Conference, which takes place in the
    context of the appeal lodged by BetterCare Group Limited against what
    BetterCare submits is the rejection of a complaint that BetterCare made to
    the Director General of Fair Trading under the Chapter II prohibition of the
    Competition Act 1998.
2          The complaint made by BetterCare was essentially that the North
    and West Belfast Health and Social Services Trust was abusing a dominant
    position, contrary to the Chapter 2 prohibition of the Act, essentially in
    offering unfair terms in its purchase from BetterCare of nursing and
    residential care services. BetterCare carries on business in the supply of
    those services.
3          After correspondence between BetterCare and the Director, the
    Director rejected BetterCare's complaint essentially on the grounds that the
    North and West Belfast Health and Social Services Trust was not an
    undertaking. BetterCare then appealed by an application lodged on 21
    November 2001 to this Tribunal.
4          The appeal at this stage raises two issues. Firstly, whether the
    Director has in fact taken a decision that is appealable to this Tribunal
    under Section 46 or Section 47 of the Competition Act 1998; and,
    secondly, whether North and West Belfast Health and Social Services Trust
    is an undertaking for the purposes of the 1998 Act.




                                          2

5          In terms of the case management of this appeal, there are three issues
    at the moment. First, whether the issue of whether or not the Director has
    taken any appealable decision, should be heard as a preliminary point;
    secondly, what should be the location of these proceedings for the purposes
    of Rule 16 of the Tribunal's Rules; and, thirdly, what should be the rule in
    relation to two applications for intervention that the Tribunal has received
    from the Registered Homes Confederation of Northern Ireland Limited and
    the Bedfordshire Care Group respectively.
6          The first of those issues (whether there is an appealable decision as a
    matter to be heard as a preliminary point) is one on which the Tribunal
    indicated to the parties that it saw merit in deciding that issue before going
    on to the question of whether the Trust is an undertaking.
7          The Director General supported that way of proceeding, but the
    appellant, BetterCare, opposed it on the ground principally that, should
    BetterCare succeed on that preliminary issue, then it, BetterCare, will incur
    extra costs if the matter then proceeds thereafter.
8          On this issue we are of the view that it is appropriate to deal with the
    question of whether there is an appealable decision as a preliminary point.
    As a matter of principle our entire jurisdiction depends upon that point
    being resolved and it does not seem to us appropriate to go into the
    subsequent question of whether the Trust is an undertaking until we are
    satisfied that we have jurisdiction to do so. Like many cases where
    preliminary issues are decided, it may well be that costs will be saved in the
    end. If we were to decide that there was no appealable decision, clearly
    that would be the end of the case. On the other hand, if we were to decide
    that there is an appealable decision and the case should proceed, in our
    view the extra costs of having taken the matter in two stages are not
    sufficiently significant to outweigh the advantages of dealing with the




                                          3

     matter as a preliminary issue. The main advantage in dealing with the
     matter as a preliminary issue is that we can in fact deal with that issue
     relatively quickly.
9           As has already been canvassed with the parties, we would expect the
     Director's defence, in the first instance, to be limited to the question of
     whether there is an appealable decision and on that basis the Director has
     told us that he can file his defence by Friday 11 January, a date which we
     are in principle prepared to accept. I will come back later in this judgment
     to the subsequent course of the proceedings, but we are of the view at the
     moment that the hearing of this preliminary issue can conveniently be heard
     in the week commencing 4 February, and that we should therefore be able
     to deal with the preliminary issue relatively expeditiously on that basis.
10          We then come to the question of the location of the proceedings.
     We originally indicated to the parties our view that the proceedings could
     conveniently remain as proceedings before a tribunal in England and
     Wales, at least pending the resolution of the preliminary issue, notably
     since that point is a point of general importance that affects not just
     Northern Ireland but the whole of the United Kingdom and indeed the
     structure of the Act.
11          The Director General expressed a preference for that point being
     decided by a tribunal in England and Wales, but the appellant, BetterCare,
     has strongly urged us to treat this as a case proceeding before a tribunal in
     Northern Ireland, since the principal participants are based in Northern
     Ireland, that their instructing solicitors are in Northern Ireland and that
     there is no merit in splitting the case in the way originally suggested.
12          We have come to the view that there is force in those submissions.
     If we take the various matters to which we are required to have regard
     under Rule 16(2) of the Tribunal Rules, we note that the applicant is




                                            4

     habitually resident in Northern Ireland, or has his place of business there.
     The Trust, which although not a party to the case is concerned by it, is also
     situated in Northern Ireland and, as we understand it, is established under
     Northern Ireland legislation. The appellant indeed is incorporated under the
     laws of Northern Ireland. One of the interveners, to which I shall come in a
     moment, the Registered Homes Confederation of Northern Ireland Limited,
     is also based in Northern Ireland.
13          Those various matters, in our view, point towards Northern Ireland
     as the correct forum for this case.
14          We also foresee the possibility of some complication arising in the
     future if we were to decide the preliminary issue of whether there is an
     appealable decision under the jurisdiction of England and Wales, with an
     appeal to the Court of Appeal in England and Wales, and subsequently
     decide the substantive issue of whether the Trust is an undertaking under
     the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland, with an appeal to the Court of Appeal
     in Northern Ireland. It does not seem to us in principle particularly
     desirable to split the proceedings in that way, which might involve two
     different Courts of Appeal hearing appeals at different stages of the case.
15          Taking into account those matters, we are of the view that the
     location of the proceedings for the purpose of Rule 16 should be Northern
     Ireland and that the hearing to be arranged in the week beginning 4
     February should therefore take place in Northern Ireland.
16          That leaves only the question of the two interventions. There is no
     objection to the intervention by the Registered Homes Confederation of
     Northern Ireland Limited raised by the Director. That is a trade association
     representing those with interests similar to BetterCare and we are prepared
     to admit that intervention.




                                           5

17          As far as the Bedfordshire Care Group is concerned, we are
     informed by that body that it represents the interests of private nursing and
     residential home owners in the County of Bedfordshire and acts on behalf
     of around 80 per cent of the private nursing and residential homes in that
     county.
18          Although the Bedfordshire Care Group is not in any way connected
     with Northern Ireland, in our view they do have a sufficient interest in this
     case for the purposes of Rule 14 of the Tribunal Rules. The Bedfordshire
     Care Group does supply private nursing and residential home services,
     notably to local authorities, and it therefore has an interest in the question
     whether a body such as a hospital trust or a local authority is an undertaking
     for the purposes of the 1998 Act when purchasing private nursing and
     residential home or care services.
19          That being the case, it does not seem to us fruitful at this point to
     speculate, as the Director invites us to, on whether the Bedfordshire Care
     Group can in fact usefully add anything to the proceedings. That, in our
     view, is not the point. The only question before us is whether that Group
     has a sufficient interest to intervene, and in our view they do.
20          We are however concerned, as we indicated in our preliminary
     views, that interventions should not result in a proliferation of paper and
     should not result in intervening parties raising issues which do not form
     part of the main appeal, or are in effect side issues or issues which are
     collateral to the main appeal.
21          In this particular case the two interveners are in fact represented by
     the same legal advisers as the appellants, BetterCare. We understand that
     neither intervener has a specific point of view to submit on the question
     whether there is an appealable decision before this Tribunal. It further
     seems to us that, on the question of -the undertaking-, there is no particular




                                            6

     reason why the submissions of the interveners should not be made through
     the legal advisers who jointly represent the appellant and the interveners.
22          In those circumstances, as at present advised, we see no need for any
     statement of intervention to be served by the two interveners. They will
     formally be interveners in the case, but for all practical purposes we expect
     their legal submissions to be made jointly with those of the appellant
     through their joint representatives. If that gives rise to any difficulty, there
     will of course be liberty to apply, as there is on any point that arises in
     relation to a case management conference before this Tribunal.
23          We admit the interventions. We will proceed to hear the preliminary
     question, as I have indicated, and we will do so in Northern Ireland.
                                    __________


24   THE PRESIDENT: Unless there are any points that arise immediately on
     that, I suggest we look back to the agenda to see whether there are any
     other matters that we ought to be covering before we adjourn.
25          I have the impression, Mr Flynn and Mr Turner, that we have
     covered most matters. We need to come back to a specific date for the
     hearing. We are in principle content with the week beginning 4 February
     and our preferred date would be Tuesday 5 February. I do not know if
     anybody here is able to indicate any fundamental problems with that date?
26   MR FLYNN: Sir, I have a hearing which is going to be on the morning of
     either Tuesday 29 January or Tuesday 5 February. At the moment I do not
     know which, but if that is the only date in the week which suits the Tribunal
     I shall make other arrangements.
27   THE PRESIDENT: For various reasons Monday 4th is not particularly
     convenient. Wednesday 6th is not convenient and Mr Flynn, we gather, is
     engaged on Friday 8th. I think it will have to be Tuesday 5th, but that, of




                                            7

     course, is subject to our arranging appropriate court accommodation in
     Belfast, which we need to do. I think we will say that it is 5 February
     provisionally and plan on that basis.
28          If we say that, then I would have thought myself that the timetable
     suggested by the Director, that is to say that the applicant's skeleton on the
     preliminary issue by 18 January and the Director's skeleton by 25 January,
     would be a reasonable timetable. In fact, that timetable leaves some
     latitude for a little slippage, but if that is the timetable the parties are
     prepared to work to, then I think we would encourage them to do so.
29   MR FLYNN: I have indicated to Mr Turner that I would be quite happy
     with that.
30   THE PRESIDENT: In that case, let us say the defence on the 11th, limited
     to the preliminary issue, the skeleton on the 18th and the Director's skeleton
     in reply on 25th for a hearing on February 5th, the precise venue to be
     notified.
31          It seems to us, certainly at this stage, that there are not going to be
     any witnesses, further documents or issues of confidentiality.
32   MR FLYNN: No, Sir.
33   THE PRESIDENT: I think unless there are any other points by way of case
     management that any party would like to raise, we for our part have only
     one matter that we would like briefly to ventilate with the parties. Are
     there any other points or submissions?
34   MR TURNER: We have two small points. The first is just to remind the
     court on point 7 of the agenda that the Director General has made certain
     requests for clarification.
35   THE PRESIDENT: That is what we were going to ask about.
36   MR TURNER: The Tribunal, I believe, has been copied the letter in which
     we made those requests. Some of them related to the undertakings issue




                                              8

     but three or four of them related to the question of the decision and how the
     applicant says that an appealable decision was made and how this appeal
     has been constituted. Really just to record, Mr Flynn has outlined in his
     submissions that he expects to be able to answer that tomorrow and, for our
     part, we are obviously content with that but we would want to have answers
     on those points because of settling the defence.
37   THE PRESIDENT: Of course, yes.
38          Are you able to give us any indication of what the answers are, Mr
     Flynn? If you really want to wait until tomorrow and do it formally so
     much the better, but if we were to look at the letter of 17 December and
     question 4 which asks "Which OFT letter contains the contested decision,
     which asks for the variation of that decision", etc, are you able to tell us
     now what the position is?
39   MR FLYNN: The plan was to meet with my instructing solicitor after this
     and put the letter together. I would not want to anticipate that. It may be
     that the answer is not simply 'yes, no, or the letter of such and such'. But
     we will respond.
40   THE PRESIDENT: And you can do so by tomorrow?
41   MR FLYNN: Yes, Sir.
42   THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
43   MR FLYNN: The second request (at paragraph 5) is as to sources of
     information and so forth. We think that falls away for the moment.
44   THE PRESIDENT: The requests as regards market information probably
     do fall away at the moment. Of course, it is up to you whether you want to
     provide it. You can still provide it if you want to, obviously.
45   MR TURNER: We shall not press for it.
46   THE PRESIDENT: You will not need to press for that, no.




                                            9

47           Similarly Mr Turner, although in the first instance we are not going
     to tackle the undertaking point, it is probably just as well to assemble any
     further information that you need about that just in case it is relevant. It is
     bound to come up at some point, isn't it?
48   MR TURNER: We shall be actively pursuing that, doing what we can to
     ascertain the facts with the North and West Trust and any other relevant
     body.
49   THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Certainly when you have had the clarification
     that you seek from the appellant, when it comes to your defence, one point
     that we would be interested in is to know by what route, if any, you think
     decisions of this kind could or should be challenged if they cannot be
     challenged under section 47 of the Act. Is it that there is no challenge at all,
     or that it is a challenge by way of judicial review or some other procedure,
     or what? I think that would be relevant.
50   MR TURNER: Sir, the other point was in relation to the factual content of
     any statement of interventions. We expect that also to be deferred for the
     moment and revisited if the need arises.
51   THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. We are not envisaging at the moment, or
     for some time to come, the need for any statements in intervention, but we
     will revisit that if and when, once the preliminary points have been decided.
52   MR FLYNN: Sir, if I can clarify that. It was always the intention that
     these interveners would be making no separate legal submissions, as it
     were, that those would be made through the single channel of the applicant.
     The interveners are there simply, should we come to the issue of
     undertakings, to speak from their experience which is necessarily wider
     than that of the applicant, so the Tribunal would have it from the horse's
     mouth so far as it was necessary.




                                           10

53   THE PRESIDENT: Let us not cross that bridge until we get to it, Mr
     Flynn, but if we did get to it what we would be deciding was whether North
     and West was an undertaking and not whether anything else was an
     undertaking, so although it is, up to a point, background information, it is
     not directly relevant to the issue perhaps.
54   MR FLYNN: Sir, I would not want to confuse what is in the statements
     supporting the request to intervene with what would go into a statement of
     intervention, which would go clearly to the issues in the case, which is not
     what happened on the ground.
55   THE PRESIDENT: Yes. If we were to get to the undertaking point, we
     would need from both sides a fairly full factual matrix in which to decide
     that point, as I think Mr Turner has already indicated in an earlier skeleton.
     It will depend very much on the particular facts, I think.
56   Very well. Are there any other points or applications that anybody wants to
     make?
57   MR FLYNN: Not from us, Sir.
58   MR TURNER: Nor from us, Sir.
59   THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much indeed.


                        (The hearing concluded at 3.45)




                                           11


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/CAT/2001/6.html