header-logo header-logo

16 August 2007
Issue: 7286 / Categories: Legal News , Competition , Commercial
printer mail-detail

BAA dominance under pressure

News

BAA could be forced to get rid of at least one of its airports to ensure standards are raised at the ones it retains, as a result of the Competition Commission’s (CC’s) investigation into the supply of airport services by BAA in the UK.

The Office of Fair Trading made the reference to the CC in March. The CC will now determine whether or not there are any features of the market that prevent, restrict or distort competition and, if so, what remedial action might be taken. BAA owns seven airports: Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Southampton in England; and Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen in Scotland.

Tom Morrison, an associate at Rollits Solicitors, says the investigation has come about largely as a result of the level of complaints about the standard and availability of facilities at BAA’s airports, most notably at Heathrow, coupled with the belief among many that operational and capacity issues would be addressed quicker and more effectively by an owner which was facing competition from neighbouring airports. 

“One of the outcomes of the investigation could well be that BAA is forced to divest of one or more of its airports in the hope that standards at the retained and divested airports will be raised as a result of having to compete for airlines and travellers’ business,” he says.

BAA, he adds, does not deny there are problems, but puts the blame on planning and other regulatory issues. “Whether BAA would put more time, effort and money into overcoming those issues if it faced competition from rival airport operators is something which should become apparent once this investigation has been completed. While we cannot pre-judge the outcome, common sense would seem to indicate that it is not healthy for one airport operator to have such dominance over the handling of flights in the south east,” he says.

Issue: 7286 / Categories: Legal News , Competition , Commercial
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll