Through its very recent decision in, Gascoigne Halman Ltd v Agents’ Mutual
Ltd, the Court of Appeal ('CA'), has upheld the
Competition Appeal Tribunal's ('CAT') findings, while
strengthening the hand of any firm looking to impose
'semi-exclusive' obligations/restriction of choice, for so
as long as the firm concerned is a new entrant in a particular
market, looking to compete with the existing market leaders (Zoopla
and Rightmove in the present case).
Interestingly, the CA has agreed with the CAT regarding the
pro-competitiveness of such an obligation (especially in absence of
market power) and that it was an ‘objectively
necessary’ arrangement. The CA has noted that given the
obligation's economic and legal context, it was legitimate for
the CAT to rule out a 'by object' restriction, as it did
not reveal sufficient degree of harm. This is in alignment with the
CAT’s finding that the ‘limited exclusivity’
provided by the restriction does not have the object of