Nazzini, R; Mantzari, D; (2018) The Ruling of the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal in Ping v Competition and Markets Authority. Journal of Antitrust Enforcement , 6 (2) pp. 281-293. 10.1093/jaenfo/jny010.

Preview

Text Mantzari_Admission of Evidence in Appeal.pdf - Accepted Version Download (144kB) | Preview

Abstract

In this issue, the Journal of Antitrust Enforcement introduces a new section discussing recent developments in competition law enforcement. This first commentary session explores the significance of the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) holding in Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority. This ruling is the first word of the CAT on the admission of new evidence in appeal proceedings based on rule 21(2) of the CAT Rules 2015. Renato Nazzini and Despoina Mantzari explore the ruling and its policy and practical implications, each from a different perspective offering both a positive and negative account. Nazzini’s comment explores the asymmetric rule set by the ruling in a two-tier administrative system concluding that ‘the approach of the CAT in Ping is, essentially, correct’, while Mantzari’s observations focus on the balance between the rights of defence and effective competition law enforcement arriving at the conclusion that ‘it is not for the CAT to usurp the role of the CMA as the primary fact-finder’. It is still rather early stages to evaluate the impact of the judgment, but the debate will continue and is likely to be fierce.

Download activity - last month

Export as JSONCSVXML

Download activity - last 12 months

Export as CSVXMLJSON

Downloads by country - last 12 months

Export as XMLCSVJSON

Archive Staff Only

View Item