Bookmakers' Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd & Ors v Amalgamated Racing Ltd & Ors (No 2), Court of Appeal - Chancery Division, November 06, 2008, [2008] EWHC 2688 (Ch)

Reporting Judge: [2008] EWHC 2688 (Ch)

President: Bookmakers' Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd & Ors v Amalgamated Racing Ltd & Ors (No 2)

Linked as:

Extract

Bookmakers' Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd & Ors v Amalgamated Racing Ltd & Ors (No 2), Court of Appeal - Chancery Division, November 06, 2008, [2008] EWHC 2688 (Ch)

Neutral Citation Number: [2008] EWHC 2688 (Ch)

Case No: HC07C02416

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 6th November 2008

Before:

MR JUSTICE MORGAN

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

AND BY WAY OF COUNTERCLAIM

(1) AMALGAMATED RACING LIMITED

(2) RACECOURSE INVESTMENTS LIMITED

(3) THE WESTERN MEETING CLUB LIMITED

(4) BANGOR-ON-DEE RACES LIMITED

(5) THE BEVERLEY RACE COMPANY LIMITED

(6) CARTMEL STEEPLECHASES (HOLKER) LIMITED

(7) THE CATTERICK RACECOURSE COMPANY LIMITED

(8) THE CHESTER RACE COMPANY LIMITED

(9) GOODWOOD RACECOURSE LIMITED

(10) THE HAMILTON PARK RACECOURSE COMPANY LIMITED

(11) THE LUDLOW RACE CLUB LIMITED

(12) MUSSELBURGH RACECOURSE COMPANY LIMITED

(13) NEWBURY RACECOURSE PLC

(14) PONTEFRACT PARK RACE COMPANY LIMITED

(15) REDCAR RACECOURSE LIMITED

(16) THE BIBURY CLUB LIMITED

(17) THIRSK RACECOURSE LIMITED

(18) WETHERBY STEEPLECHASE COMMITTEE LIMITED

(19) NICHOLAS HUGH TREMAYNE WRIGLEY (on his own behalf as member of and as representative of the members of YORK RACE COMMITTEE)

Counterclaimants

and

(1) BOOKMAKERS' AFTERNOON GREYHOUND SERVICES LIMITED

(2) CORAL RACING LIMITED

(3) DONE BROS (CASH BETTING) LIMITED

(4) LADBROKES BETTING AND GAMING LIMITED

(5) WILLIAM HILL ORGANIZATION LIMITED

Claimants

AND BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL CLAIM

AMALGAMATED RACING LIMITED

1ST Defendant

and

SATELLITE INFORMATION SERVICES LIMITED

AND BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL CLAIM

SATELLITE INFORMATION SERVICES LIMITED

Third Party

and

(1) AMALGAMATED RACING LIMITED

1st Defendant

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nicholas Green QC, Pushpinder Saini QC, Mark Hoskins, Sarah Abram & Emily Wood (instructed by

S J Berwin) for the Claimants

Peter Roth QC, Brian Doctor QC, Paul Harris, Ronit Kreisberger& Ewan West (instructed by Wiggin) for the Defendants

Charles Hollander QC, Helen Davies QC & Victoria Wakefield (instructed by Olswang) for the Third Party

Hearing dates: 1st, 2nd, 6th,7th,8th,9th,12th,13th,14th,15th,16th,19th,20th,21st,22nd,23rd of May and 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 23rd, 24th and 26th June 2008

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

SECOND JUDGMENT

Mr Justice Morgan:

Introduction1. On 8th August 2008, I handed down judgment dealing with all but two of the claims which required to be decided in this action. The two claims which were not the subject of my earlier judgment were claims made by some of the Defendants against some of the Claimants. This second judgment now deals with those two claims. In this second judgment I will continue to use the abbreviations used in my earlier judgment. Where I refer to ``the Claimants'' and to ``the Defendants'' the reference is to those Claimants and those Defendants who are the relevant Claimants or Defendants, as the case may be, for the purposes of these two claims.

2. Speaking generally, the two claims which are the subject of this judgment are of collusive behaviour by certain bookmakers contrary to Article 81 of the EC Treaty. Originally, the Counterclaim made four claims of collusive behaviour on the part of certain bookmakers. In the course of his closing submissions, but not earlier, Mr Roth QC who appeared on behalf of the Defendants stated that the Defendants were not pursuing two of the four claims.

3. The first of the four claims pleaded in the Counterclaim was of an alleged unlawful concerted practice by BAGS and/or Coral, Ladbrokes and William Hill not to take LBO licences for what had been described as the April racecourses. That claim has now been abandoned.

4. The second such claim made by the Counterclaim was of an alleged concerted practice by BAGS and/or Coral, Ladbrokes and William Hill not to take an LBO licence for the Kempton Park evening races. That claim also has now been abandoned.

5. The next claim made by the Counterclaim, which claim remains a live claim, was that there was an unlawful concerted practice by Coral, Ladbrokes, William Hill and BetFred to refuse to purchase Turf TV, in effect, to boycott Turf TV. More specifically, the Defendants have pleaded that the four bookmakers to whom I have referred were parties to an agreement and/or a concerted practice to refuse to purchase Turf TV and/or to exclude or impede AMRAC's entry to and/or to hinder or jeopardise AMRAC's survival in the relevant market or markets. It is further pleaded that this agreement or practice had the object or effect of restricting or distorting competition in the relevant markets being, first, a market for the provision of televised broadcasts of live horseracing to LBOs and, secondly, the market for the acquisition of LBO rights. The Counterclaim pleads that this agreement or practice came to an end at an unspecified date but, at any rate, by the time that Coral signed an agreement to purchase Turf TV on or about the 22nd December 2007. Cora...

See the full content of this document