Printed from the Field Fisher Waterhouse web site
Web address: http://www.ffw.com/latest-news/2005/jan/ffw’s-competition-team-win-hig.aspx

Find a press release

RSS news feeds

Press contacts

Louise Eckersley

Louise Eckersley
PR Manager
louise.eckersley@ffw.com
t. +44 (0)20 7861 4120

Nugent Paula

Paula Nugent
PR Executive
paula.nugent@ffw.com
t. +44 (0)20 7861 4526

Practices

FFW’s Competition team win High Court strike-out battle for RAJAR

12 January 2005

Field Fisher Waterhouse acted for RAJAR (Radio Joint Audience Research Limited), the non-profit company that commissions and conducts research into the UK’s radio audiences, in its High Court victory against  Kelvin MacKenzie’s The Wireless Group plc (TWG).

The judgment was handed down on 16 December after a High Court hearing in November 2004 of RAJAR’s application to strike out TWG’s claim.  It was represented throughout by a team from FFW, led by partners Charles Whiddington (competition) and Mark Lewis (litigation). FFW instructed Nick Green QC and Aidan Robertson, both of Brick Court Chambers.

TWG brought High Court proceedings against RAJAR, claiming that the decision taken by RAJAR on 10 June 2003 not to replace the diary system used to measure radio audiences with electronic audiometers, was an abuse of an alleged dominant market position and, therefore, in breach of Section 18 of the Competition Act 1998.  Mr Justice Lloyd agreed with RAJAR, that TWG’s characterisation of RAJAR’s decision as absolute, firm and final, did not correspond with the real nature of the decision. TWG claimed in the press that the diary system under-recorded the audience for its radio station subsidiary talkSPORT and that as a result it had lost an estimated £66m in advertising revenue. TWG’s published claims were not substantiated in its pleadings. The Judge noted that TWG claimed to have suffered loss from a date almost three years prior to the date of the decision and that seemed to him to be misconceived.

Mr Justice Lloyd agreed with RAJAR that TWG’s case should be struck out on the grounds that it had no realistic prospect of success.  He said that TWG’s challenge “does not match the reality of the case” and that RAJAR’s decision, following extensive field tests to seek modifications from the meter manufacturers, was a “rational, commercial approach”.  In his judgment, Lloyd J said:
“When the true nature of the decision is considered, in the context of facts which appear to be undisputed and indisputable, I find it impossible to see how that decision could be said to be an abuse of a dominant position, as lacking objective justification.”

This strike-out victory, rare in a competition case, further enhances the growing reputation of FFW’s Competition and Regulatory Law Group, which has a number of high profile private and public sector clients. FFW (on that occasion with litigation partner Nick Rose) acted for Ordnance Survey in striking out the competition defence raised by the AA in the copyright infringement claim brought against the AA. The group has been further boosted this year by the lateral hire of Tite & Lewis’ former Head of Competition, James Robinson.

FFW Competition partner Charles Whiddington says:
“We are delighted with the result. Striking out a claim is never easy, because it requires showing that the claim has no reasonable prospect of success.  The court has confirmed that in competition cases such as this, the onus is on the complainant to establish that the decision is irrational and not objectively justified.  RAJAR’s approach to the possible adoption of electronic audience measurement was endorsed by the court, which noted ‘the court must allow undertakings to take business decisions on normal commercial bases and in a normal way’.

An important feature of this case is that RAJAR is at the forefront of technology and has always been keen to offer its stakeholders the choice of moving to an electronic measurement system, but only when the technology is able to meet its requirements.”

FFW litigation partner Mark Lewis says:
“The judgment vindicates our strategy of full disclosure, arguably going beyond what is required by the rules, even going to the extent of allowing TWG to cross-examine our witness. This meant that effectively, the Judge was able to see that: “…more fully, than might otherwise, and normally, be the case what points are in dispute and which are not.”

For further press information, please contact:

Ben Girdlestone, Communications Manager, on  +44 (0)20 7861 4968

Louise Eckersley, PR Executive, on +44 (0)20 7861 4120