header-logo header-logo

17 January 2008
Issue: 7304 / Categories: Legal News , Regulatory , Competition
printer mail-detail

JJB to pay fans over football shirt scam

News

The legal battle between sports chain JJB Sports and Which? about overpriced football shirts has been settled out of court, with the retailer promising to return cash to consumers who were overcharged.

Fans who paid up to £39.99 for certain England and Manchester United football shirts during specific periods in 2000 or 2001 and joined the Which? case against JJB Sports will get £20 each. Those who bought affected shirts but didn’t join the case can claim £10.

JJB was part of a cartel of seven companies fined more than £16m in 2003 for fixing the price of the football shirts. Which? used its powers under the Enterprise Act 2002 to launch an action for damages.

Tom Morrison, an associate at Rollits, says JJB was always going to be in a weak position following the earlier finding of anti-competitive behaviour.
“In light of this, it seems that JJB has decided to settle rather than risking a dangerous test case with a potentially worse outcome which may set a precedent for the future.”

The Office of Fair Trading, he says, has indicated that it will now focus on high-profile competition law cases of economic significance and therefore wishes to reduce the pressure on the enforcement system by encouraging similar class actions in the future.

Issue: 7304 / Categories: Legal News , Regulatory , Competition
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