Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 01 FEBRUARY 2019

‘Semi-Exclusive' Restrictions Could Be Considered Pro-Competitive

Shepherd and Wedderburn
Shepherd and Wedderburn
Contributor
Shepherd and Wedderburn

Shepherd and Wedderburn

We are an independent law firm, headquartered in Scotland, delivering high-quality legal advice and...

View firm profile
Explore more from Shepherd and Wedderburn

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 ...

United KingdomAntitrust/Competition Law

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

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from