Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer competition partner Deirdre Trapp has scored a Competition Appeal Tribunal victory for supermarket giant Tesco after the Competition Commission tried to alter the process for okaying new or extended stores.
Tesco, which was represented by Brick Court Chambers’ Nicholas Green QC, had challenged an earlier Competition Commission decision that said a competition test should be used when considering planning applications for large grocery stores
Effectively the test would have forced local authorities to reject applications for the construction or extension of large supermarkets if there was already a high number of stores in the area and the retailer in question had a substantial part of the market.
Speaking after the appeal judgment was handed down, Trapp said: “It’s a completely unprecedented judgment – the courts have never previously found against the Competition Commission in the context of a market investigation.
“It’s a landmark decision and it will give rise to a number of interesting legal issues.”
She added: “This was a successful team effort by Tesco and its team of advisors, to confront an inquiry finding that seemed unjustified.”
According to Tesco’s appeal, the commission had not taken account of all the detrimental effects the competition test could have when it drew it up.
Tesco argued, among other things, that the test would prevent 24 per cent of existing larger grocery stores in the UK from extending.
In its judgment the tribunal, led by Mr Justice Barling, said that the commission did not “fully and properly assess and take account of the risk that the application of the test might have adverse effects for consumers as a result of their being denied the benefit of developments which would enhance their welfare”.
That said, the tribunal judges stressed that, while finding in favour of Tesco, their conclusions “do not preclude the possibility that the test would ultimately be lawfully recommended by the commission and implemented”.
The Competition Commission was represented by Monckton Chambers’ Peter Roth QC, who was instructed by the Treasury solicitor.
Freshfields
Can Freshfields ever do anything wrong? They seem to be walking on water.
OMG
Freshfields victory in a case: SHOCKER! “Walking on water”???
The inane nature of some of the comments posted on this site astounds me. Freshfields win stuff all the time. Who is posting this cr@p?
Poor reading skills
M needs to read the comment more carefully. It is precisely because Freshfields are winning so many cases, getting on panels and not firing people like its peers , show that it is ‘walking on water’. it appears to be the only Magic Circle Firm to be untouched by the maelstrom. Congratulations
M. , you have joined the list of ‘inane’ commenters.
Poor comprehension skills
No, my love, perhaps you need to work on understanding nuance and sarcasm. My point is that there is no disproportionate “winning” by FF. It is winning things, as it ought to, but certainly not demonstrably more than it’s competitors (and neither do I think any of those are pulling away from the pack). It wins things all the time, which is why it is a great firm. The “walking on water” comment just sounds silly. The comment, along with one posted on the Wolsley rights issue article, appear to be the work of some kind of “marketing genius” FF fanboy. “Freshfields Wins Case” does not signify any paradigm shift, and a quick scan of the Lawyer confirms that FF has no particular deluge of work that outstrips its competitors.
Granted, not laying off associates is good work by the Fleet St Elite, but let’s see how long that lasts. And let’s not forget the groaning from the FF lawyers who didn’t appreciate the pay freeze/decrease -“untouched by the maelstrom” it certainly is not. So, in sum, and in case you still don’t quite understand: the comment was to my mind (in demonstrating a over-awed “surprise” at FF’s recent “success”) inane.
Sarcasm the lowest form of wit
M., my unbeloved, not everyone who praises a firm is part of the PR machine. Your beef should be with the legal press.
You’re right.
Maybe you just work there, or are about to start a training contract with them. That would explain the “starry-eyed” comments…
“Unbeloved” is a little harsh though. *sob
Victory? for society?
I’m surprised that the discussion is so petty, or even about Freshfields. Are you not more concerned about the march of Tescos and the effect on our high streets and growth of the habit of shopping by car?
A narrow ‘victory’
Anyone who practises planning law could have seen this ‘victory’ coming. If it is a victory for anything at all, it is one for common sense.
Local planning authorities are required by law to consider planning applications on planning grounds. The only policies they are required to apply are those in their own development plans and in guidance laid down by (in England) the Department of Communities and Local Goverment. The judgment confirms that local planning authorities would act ultra vires if they took account of non-planning considerations, even at the purported direction of another executive body.
Sorry to be so boring while the rest of you are having so much fun.