‘Collusion’ between Sure and JT gets overturned in court
Sure and JT have succeeded in a court appeal against a decision and heavy fines imposed by the Guernsey Competition and Regulatory Authority after the telcos were accused of breaching competition law.
Sure was fined nearly £3m. by the GCRA while JT was fined £439,608 for its alleged involvement.
Sure said at the time the investigation was launched in 2019 that it was flawed and the company was innocent.
The GCRA had ruled that both companies broke the law by attempting to control the Guernsey mobile market illegally.
That included colluding to introduce the next generation of mobile networks at a slower pace than was sought by the States, while misleading the government that they planned to do the work in line or ahead of the UK.
The judgment handed down by Bailiff Sir Richard McMahon accepted the arguments by Sure and JT that the regulator had not followed correct procedure.
Fines were imposed on the telcos in July 2022 following the regulator’s decision that the law had been breached, made in December 2021.
This had followed an earlier decision, in January 2020, when the GCRA issued a notice of its proposed decision and asked for further information.
Just over a year later, and following interviews with senior management at Sure, the regulator sent notice of a new proposed decision.
Of the various grounds of appeal lodged by Sure and JT, each party included one which related to the way in which it claimed that the GCRA had acted was procedurally unfair.
Its second decision was different to its first and included a presumption that, both parties claimed and the Bailiff accepted, that should have been put to Sure.
‘I take the view that it was incumbent on the respondent, potentially in short order, just as it had done following its change of approach... to re-cast the grounds on which it proposed to find an infringement, and invite any further representations that the appellants wished to make.’
He added that some of the other grounds of appeal might also have succeeded.
Sir Richard made no order as to costs, suggesting that if the successful parties wanted to seek costs, other than those due to be paid on a recoverable basis, a further hearing could be arranged.
