header-logo header-logo

29 January 2010
Issue: 7402 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

BSkyB is loser in spat over ITV

Commission’s recommendation to reduce shareholding upheld

The Court of Appeal has dismissed BSkyB’s legal challenge to the Competition Commission’s findings over its share in ITV but upheld the Commission’s conclusion on media plurality.

The Competition Commission found BSkyB’s acquisition of 17.9% of ITV’s issued share capital in 2006 would result in an expected “lessening of competition” and recommended it reduce its holding to below 7.5%. This would satisfy the so-called “media plurality” issue, by which there should be sufficient numbers of people with control of media enterprises to guard against dominance by one person.

BSkyB’s share offer had acted as a “spoiler” on an earlier bid for ITV by Virgin Media, at a lower share price. Virgin’s offer was worth about £1.22 per share while BSkyB offered £1.35.

In BSkyB v Virgin (British Sky Broadcasting Group plc v Competition Commission and others; Virgin Media Inc v Competition Commission and others) [2010] EWCA Civ 2, [2010] All ER (D) 130 (Jan), Lord Justice Lloyd upheld the Commission’s findings on curbing BSkyB’s shares holdings.
As regards dominance in the media, Lloyd LJ said: “what was required [to satisfy the media plurality issue] was not just an exercise of counting heads, and that it was proper and necessary to have regard to the actual degree of control exercised by one enterprise over another.”

Later in his judgment, he said: “when it comes to assessing the plurality of the aggregate number of relevant controllers and to considering the sufficiency of that plurality, the Commission may, and should, take into account the actual extent of the control exercised and exercisable over a relevant enterprise by another, whether it is a case of deemed control resulting from material influence under section 26 or rather one of actual common ownership or control.”

 

Issue: 7402 / Categories: Legal News
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
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
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
back-to-top-scroll