Le Patourel v BT Group plc
The first collective action to go to trial in the Competition Appeal Tribunal failed, because although BT's prices for landline services were excessive, they were not shown to be unfair.
Facts
Mr Le Patourel brought an opt out collective action on behalf of about 3.7 million BT customers who bought standalone landline services, arguing that BT had abused its dominant position by charging excessive and unfair prices for those services, which had been criticised by Ofcom. The claim sought about 1.3 billion pounds in damages.
Legal principle
The Competition Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claim. Applying the test in United Brands, the tribunal found that BT's prices were excessive, in that they significantly exceeded the economic value of the services, but held that they were not unfair, either in themselves or when compared with competitors' prices, considering the comparisons made, the value customers placed on the services, and the fact that BT had reduced its prices after Ofcom's intervention. The claim therefore failed on the question of unfairness. The case was the first collective action under the regime introduced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to reach a final judgment after trial.
Related cases on private enforcement and damages
- Courage Ltd v Crehan Case C-453/99, [2001] ECR I-6297
- Devenish Nutrition Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis SA [2008] EWCA Civ 1086, [2009] Ch 390
- Inntrepreneur Pub Co v Crehan [2006] UKHL 38, [2007] 1 AC 333
- Kone AG v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG Case C-557/12, EU:C:2014:1317
- Manfredi v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA Joined Cases C-295/04 to C-298/04, [2006] ECR I-6619
- Merricks v Mastercard Inc [2020] UKSC 51
- Provimi Ltd v Aventis Animal Nutrition SA [2003] EWHC 961 (Comm)
- Royal Mail Group Ltd v DAF Trucks Ltd [2023] CAT 6
Studying competition law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
