- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Argos Ltd & Anor v Office of Fair Trading
Factual and Procedural Background
This judgment concerns appeals arising from two separate investigations conducted by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) under the Competition Act 1998 (the Act). The first investigation, referred to as "Toys and Games," involved agreements between Company A, Company B, and Company C fixing the prices of certain toys and games manufactured by Company A. The OFT found that these parties had breached the Chapter I prohibition of the Act, imposing penalties on Company B and Company C but not on Company A due to a leniency agreement. Company B and Company C appealed to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the Tribunal) against both liability and penalty. The Tribunal upheld the finding of breach but reduced the penalties. Both appellants further appealed to this court on liability and penalty.
The second investigation, known as "Football Shirts," concerned price-fixing of replica football kits. The OFT found that price-fixing agreements had been entered into by the Football Association, Company D, Company E, and several retailers including Company F, Company G, and Company H. Penalties were imposed except on one party in administration. Appeals were brought to the Tribunal, which partially allowed the appeal on liability for Company F but dismissed others. Penalties were varied, including a significant reduction for Company F. Company F appealed to this court on liability and penalty.
The appeals involve distinct facts but raise similar legal points, particularly on liability and penalty. They represent the first appeals to the Court of Appeal under these provisions of the 1998 Act and were heard consecutively by the same court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the findings of breach of the Chapter I prohibition by the Tribunal in relation to the appellants are correct in law, specifically concerning the existence of agreements or concerted practices with horizontal elements.
- The legal principles governing the assessment and imposition of penalties under the Competition Act 1998, including the relevance and application of the OFT’s Guidance issued under section 38 of the Act.
- The interpretation and application of the concept of concerted practice and agreement under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and the 1998 Act, including the requirement of consensus or concurrence of wills among parties.
- The scope and application of the leniency regime and the principle of equal treatment in penalty assessments, particularly regarding the treatment of parties granted immunity or reduced penalties.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Eagil Trust Co Ltd v. Pigott-Brown [1985] 3 All ER 119 | Requirement for judges to give reasons sufficient to show the principles and basis for their decisions. | Applied to the Tribunal’s judgments to emphasize sufficiency of reasoning without needing to address every argument. |
| Knight v. Clifton [1971] Ch 700 | Support for the principle that a judge need not address every argument if the basis of the decision is clear. | Endorsed as part of the approach to judicial reasoning. |
| ICI v Commission [1972] ECR 619 ("Dyestuffs") | Definition of concerted practice as coordination that substitutes practical cooperation for competition. | Used to define the nature of concerted practices relevant to the appeals. |
| Suiker Unie v Commission [1975] ECR 1663 | Prohibition of contacts between competitors that influence market conduct or disclose future conduct. | Applied in assessing whether communications amounted to prohibited concerted practices. |
| Commission v Anic Partecipazioni [1999] ECR I-4125 | Concerted practices include collusion distinguishable from agreements by intensity and form. | Clarified scope of concerted practices in the context of the appeals. |
| Bayer v Commission [2000] ECR II-3383 | Requirement of concurrence of wills for an agreement; unilateral conduct is excluded unless apparent. | Central to the analysis of whether communications and conduct constituted agreements or unilateral acts. |
| Cimenteries v Commission [2000] ECR II-491 | Reciprocal contacts may be inferred where one competitor discloses intentions and another accepts them. | Used to evaluate the sufficiency of contacts for concerted practice findings. |
| Tate & Lyle v Commission [2001] ECR II-2035 | Disclosure of intentions by one competitor to a supplier can still form part of a concerted practice. | Supported the Tribunal’s findings on indirect communications leading to concerted practices. |
| Camera Care v Victor Hasselblad AB [1982] CMLR 233; [1984] ECR 883 | Complaints by one undertaking to another may constitute or evidence a concerted practice if acted upon. | Considered in relation to complaints made by a retailer to a supplier influencing conduct of competitors. |
| Tokai Carbon v Commission Case T-236/01 [2004] | Requirement for reasons when departing from guidance; principle of equal treatment in penalty assessment. | Applied to assess the relevance of OFT Guidance and equal treatment principle in penalty appeals. |
| CMA CGM v Commission Case T-213/00 [2003] ECR II-913 | Principle of equal treatment prohibits unjustified differential treatment of comparable situations. | Referenced in discussion of alleged discrimination in penalty imposition. |
| JFE Engineering Joined Cases T-67, 68, 71 and 78/00 [2004] | Equal treatment requires objective justification for differences in penalties among parties to the same infringement. | Relied on in arguments concerning alleged unequal treatment of parties granted leniency. |
| BPB de Eendracht v Commission Case T-311/94 [1998] ECR II-1129 | Principle of equal treatment and its application to competition law penalties. | Referenced in discussion of discrimination claims. |
| Ahlström Osakeyhtiö v Commission Joined Cases C-89/95 etc [1993] ECR I-1307 ("Woodpulp") | An undertaking found in breach cannot escape penalty on ground that another was not fined, if not subject to proceedings. | Distinguished on facts; relevant to principle of equal treatment and investigation scope. |
| Dunlop Slazenger v Commission Case T-43/92 [1994] ECR II-441 | Refusal to impose penalty on minor or passive participants does not affect penalties on others. | Distinguished on facts; used in principle discussion on penalty imposition. |
| Van Megen Sports v Commission Case T-49/95 [1996] ECR II-1799 | Similar to Dunlop Slazenger; different treatment justified by non-comparability of involvement. | Referenced in principle discussion on penalty assessment. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court conducted a detailed examination of the facts and legal principles underlying the findings of breach and penalty in both the Toys and Games and Football Shirts appeals. It emphasized that the appeals on liability were limited to points of law and that the Tribunal's factual findings were generally entitled to deference.
Regarding liability, the court analyzed the nature of agreements and concerted practices, relying on established case law to clarify that a concurrence of wills or a tacit acceptance is necessary for an agreement, and that concerted practices involve coordination substituting practical cooperation for competition risks. The court accepted the Tribunal's findings that in both appeals there were vertical bilateral agreements supplemented by trilateral agreements or concerted practices with horizontal elements, involving indirect communications and exchanges of confidential pricing intentions through suppliers acting as intermediaries.
In the Football Shirts appeal, the court upheld the Tribunal’s conclusion that Company F (JJB) was party to a trilateral concerted practice with Company D (Umbro) and Company G (Sports Soccer) based on communications revealing pricing intentions and pressure exerted on the supplier to act against discounting by a competitor. The court rejected arguments that the Tribunal’s reasoning was too general or that subjective consensus was lacking, finding that the context and evidence justified the finding of a concerted practice.
In the Toys and Games appeal, the court affirmed the Tribunal’s findings that Company B (Argos) and Company C (Littlewoods) were party to bilateral vertical agreements with Company A (Hasbro) and to a trilateral concerted practice. The court rejected challenges that the arrangements were mere price information exchanges, emphasizing that the evidence demonstrated an express or implied agreement to price at recommended retail prices with an understanding that competitors would do the same.
On penalty, the court reviewed the OFT’s Guidance under section 38 of the Act, which outlines a five-step approach to penalty calculation, emphasizing seriousness, deterrence, and leniency provisions. The court agreed with the Tribunal that the Guidance is not binding on the Tribunal but is an important cross-check in penalty assessment.
The court addressed the relevant product market definition for penalty purposes, holding that a formal market analysis is not required in Chapter I cases and that a broad, commercially reasonable market definition is appropriate. It found the Tribunal’s acceptance of the OFT’s broad market categories reasonable.
Regarding the principle of equal treatment, the court considered submissions that Company A (Hasbro) had been unduly favored by receiving full immunity under the leniency regime, while Company B and Company C faced substantial penalties. The court held that the principle of equal treatment requires comparable situations to be treated alike unless objectively justified. It concluded that the OFT’s decision to grant immunity to Company A was within its margin of appreciation based on the material available at the time and that the absence of Company A from the appeal limited the scope for challenging this on appeal.
The court also addressed arguments about the appropriateness of penalty multipliers and uplifts, finding no error in the Tribunal’s reasoned approach, including its assessment that Company F’s role was active and warranted a higher multiplier than that applied to other parties.
In summary, the court found no legal error in the Tribunal’s decisions on liability or penalty in either appeal, endorsing the detailed factual findings and the application of legal principles to those facts.
Holding and Implications
The court’s final decision is to DISMISS the appeals on both liability and penalty brought by Company B, Company C, and Company F in the respective investigations under the Competition Act 1998.
The direct effect is that the Tribunal’s findings of breach of the Chapter I prohibition and the penalties imposed, subject to the reductions already made by the Tribunal, are upheld. No new precedent is established beyond the application of existing legal principles to the facts of these cases. The decision confirms the approach to assessing concerted practices involving indirect communications through suppliers, the application of the OFT’s penalty Guidance, and the limits of appeals on penalty and liability under the Act.
Alert