 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Competition Appeals Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Competition Appeals Tribunal >> Vodafone Limited v Office of Communications [2008] CAT 4 (28 February 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/CAT/2008/4.html Cite as: [2008] CAT 4 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Neutral citation [2008] CAT 4
IN THE COMPETITION
Case No:
1094/3/3/08
APPEAL TRIBUNAL |
||
|
|
||
|
Victoria House
Bloomsbury Place
London WC1A 2EB
28 February
2008
Before:
Lord Carlile of Berriew QC (Chairman)
BETWEEN:
VODAFONE
LIMITED
Appellant -v-
OFFICE OF
COMMUNICATIONS
Respondent |
||
|
|
||
|
ORDER OF THE CHAIRMAN |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
1.
This is an application by the respondent, OFCOM, for an
extension of time for serving its defence which is due at 5pm on 12 March
20081. The extension sought is relatively short one until 5pm
on 28 March 2008 (taking into account the Easter public
holiday).
2.
The application takes the form of a letter dated 19 February
2008. The grounds set out in the letter are that OFCOM is engaged in
various appeals currently before the Tribunal (Cases 1083, 1085,
1089-1092); Vodafone has raised a large number of detailed factual issues;
and the importance of the decision under appeal (OFCOM’s Concluding
Statement, Telephone number portability for consumers switching
suppliers, dated 29 November 20072) for the
telecommunications industry, and ultimately for consumers, makes it
essential that OFCOM has an opportunity to respond fully and effectively
to the grounds of appeal.
3.
The application is opposed by the appellant, Vodafone,
primarily on the basis that prolongation of the appeal timetable increases
the risk that time, money and resources would be wasted by all network
operators if Vodafone’s appeal is successful. Vodafone refers to the cost
of having to comply with the deadlines laid down by the contested decision
pending the appeal. Vodafone also expresses surprise that OFCOM is having
difficulties in preparing its defence given that it has been working on
mobile number portability for more than a year.
4.
Both parties were content for me to consider OFCOM’s
application on the papers, and I have carefully considered their
submissions. For the reasons set out below, my decision is that it is
reasonable in the particular circumstances of this case to extend time for
service of the defence until 5pm on 28 March 2008.
5.
First, it will be important for OFCOM to clarify in its
defence the matters at issue in this appeal, and in particular why it
considers that it has correctly |
||
|
|
||
|
1 The provisions
governing the filing and service of the defence are contained in rule 14
of the Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules 2003 (S.I. No. 1372 of 2003, as
amended by S.I. No. 2068 of 2004) (“the Tribunal Rules”).
1 |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
evaluated the likely benefits and
detriments arising from the implementation of its decision on mobile
number portability. A full and properly argued defence is particularly
important in this case since both parties emphasise the wider public
interest implications of the contested decision. A full defence will also
have the benefit that supplemental pleadings should not be
necessary.
6.
Second, on the face of the submissions, the extension does
not appear to prejudice Vodafone to any material degree, and not in a way
that cannot be dealt with by a slight adjustment to the timetable for the
case. As regards the costs associated with having to comply with the
decision pending the appeal, as is normally the case: a decision stands
unless and until it has been set aside. Furthermore, it was (and still is)
open to Vodafone to make an appropriate application for an order under
rule 61 of the Tribunal Rules suspending, pending the hearing of
Vodafone’s substantive appeal, certain aspects of the
decision.
7.
Third, the short delay in filing and serving the defence in
this case is not likely to be prejudicial to the Tribunal’s management of
the case since a comprehensive timetable down to the oral hearing has yet
to be laid down, and Vodafone’s concerns as to expedition can be factored
in to the determination of the dates for further steps in the preparation
of the case and the fixing of the oral hearing.
8.
For the reasons given above, I therefore extend the time
limit for the serving the defence until 5pm on 28 March
2008. |
||
|
|
||
|
Lord Carlile of Berriew QC
Made: 28 February 2008
Chairman of the Competition Appeal Tribunal
Drawn: 28 February 2008 |
||
|
|
||
|
2 |
||
|
|
||