Arkin v Borchard Lines Ltd and Others

Notified by: Hugh Mercer

Notifier's role in case: Counsel for second to fourth defendants and 3rd, 5th, 8th and 10th Part 20 defendants

Case no: 1997 Folio No. 956

Postal address: Essex Court Chambers, 24 Lincoln's Inn Fields, London WC2A 3EG

Email address: hmercer@essexcourt.net

Court: High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court

Judge: Mr Justice Colman

Date of judgment: 10 April 2003

Counsel: Nicholas Green QC and Roger Masefield for the Claimant; Peter Irvin and Sarah Lee, Steven Gee QC and Hugh Mercer, Vasanti Selvaratnam QC and Fergus Randolph for the Defendants and Part 20 Defendants

Solicitors: Singletons for the claimants; Constant and Constant, Messrs Davies Arnold Cooper, Berwin Leighton Paisner for defendants and Part 20 defendants

Competition issues: Articles 82 - was the shipping liner conference in a dominant position and, if so, did it abuse that dominant position by reducing its prices where there was a price war on the trade. Article 81 - did the conference apply uniform or common rates within the liner shipping block exemption

Result: Held no breach of Article 82 because the liner conference did not have any eliminatory intent. Also no breach of Article 81 because the rates remained uniform or common. In any event the Claimant's failure to leave the market, even temporarily, was the predominant cause of its loss of profits    

Where case will be published: Likely to be published in Lloyds Law Reports, UK Competition Law Reports

Contact for further information: Hugh Mercer, Essex Court Chambers,  020 7813 8000

 

Back to: 2003