-
Archives
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- May 2017
- January 2017
- December 2014
- September 2014
- June 2014
-
Meta
Monthly Archives: August 2018
Ofcom has fined Royal Mail £50 million for abuse of dominance
The fine follows a complaint made by Whistl after Royal Mail changed its wholesale customer contracts in 2014. At the time, Whistl (then known as TNT) was expanding its business to compete with Royal Mail in the delivery of business letters (“bulk mail”) in some parts of the UK. The contract change increased the prices Whistl had to pay Royal Mail to deliver such letters in the parts of the UK that Whistl did not itself cover. As a result, Whistl decided to suspend its plans to extend its bulk mail delivery.Royal Mail has indicated it will challenge the decision. For its part, Whistl is seeking damages. If the decision is not overturned, Whistl will be spared the need to prove Royal Mail’s liability in the litigation, as Ofcom’s decision will be binding on the Court.Such “follow-on” damages actions by victims of anticompetitive conduct are becoming increasingly popular. At present, the breach of competition law which is spawning by far the most follow-on actions is the price-fixing agreement by Europe’s leading truck manufacturers. The first action in England against the trucks cartel was brought by … Royal Mail.
Posted in Shorter Reads
Comments Off on Ofcom has fined Royal Mail £50 million for abuse of dominance
Justice for the few
So the outgoing President of the Family Division is throwing in the towel on access to justice, unless you have money. How depressing. There have been many straws in the wind – such as his enthusiasm for rolling out the online Family Court. The President has talked previously about people not being able to afford to travel to court so online access to justice can do the job instead. Apparently. Relying on one-size-fits-all online advice is quite dangerous, by the way, made worse by users being lulled into a false sense of security in thinking they’ve avoided all the pitfalls. Now the President is encouraging the use of private FDRs. FDR stands for Financial Dispute Resolution and is a useful judge-led stage in the court process when a judge acts as a sounding board to tell the couple in front of him how he’d deal with their financial dispute if he’d been their trial judge. If they don’t settle, he has no further involvement in the case. It worked well for a number of years but the chaos in the courts (no judge/no court file/hanging around all day at court and being told at 4pm that there isn’t going to be a judge) has already prompted lawyers acting for wealthy clients to appoint a good well-prepared, usually ex-judge, to give clients this non-binding indication. They pay him or her, choose a private location (not in a public waiting room with three other families, or crouched around their files in the stairwell to get a bit of privacy) and it’s often successful, leading to an agreement that’s then approved by an actual sitting judge. Good for them. But it’s an indication of failure, not innovation.This is the sub text:1. The courts are incapable of delivering justice to the public because of the catastrophic cuts to the Ministry of Justice budget. And that includes the decimation of legal aid so that those who can’t afford lawyers have no hope of getting proper advice and representation and their cases take up far more time when they do get to Court.2. Those who have money can afford to buy access to justice. Although money has always given an edge to those in possession of it, there’s no longer any attempt to hide it.Imagine Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Health, announcing enthusiastically that people can sign up to BUPA and take themselves off to private hospitals for privately paid operations. Because each operation paid for privately would “free up NHS resources to deal, sooner or more fully, with minor and more serious operations that demand the skills of a surgeon employed by the NHS”. Precisely.
Posted in Shorter Reads
Comments Off on Justice for the few