Adam Aldred

For over 25 years, Adam has specialised in all aspects of EU and UK competition law, including antitrust investigations, appeals, antitrust litigation, mergers, restrictive trade practices and cartels, strategic business advice, Groceries Supply Code of Practice (GSCOP), joint ventures and other forms of collaboration, dominance, public procurement, Subsidy control, State aid and competition risk management.

Adam has been Top Ranked by Chambers UK for Competition Law (The Regions (Bar)) for many years.

Significant Cases Investigations & Advisory

1. Obtaining leniency markers for various clients based in the North of England in respect of matters which were not pursued by regulators on administrative grounds
2. Acting for a recipient of a Statement of Objections issued by the Competition and Markets Authority
3. Acting for directors and individuals of companies under investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority
4. Acting for an international pharmaceutical company on an EC dawn raid in Yorkshire
5. Acting for a trade association defending allegations of participation in anti-competitive conduct
6. Acting for a company based in the North West in respect of the OFT investigation in the UK automotive industry – from dawn raid to settlement
7. Acting for the Danish parent company of the Yorkshire-based immunity applicant in respect of the OFT’s Dairy cartel decision – Adam successfully applied for that immunity
8. Acting for a FTSE 100 insurer: various investigations into the UK’s private health industry, and also UK private motor insurance
9. Acting for a FTSE 100 insurer: the OFT’s commitments decision in respect of information sharing through Experian’s What If product
10. Acting for a Midlands-based copper fittings manufacturer in respect of an EC investigation, including leniency and an appeal before the General Court in Luxembourg

Competition Litigation

1. Advising on a number of potential applications for collective proceedings orders (CPOs) in the Competition Appeal Tribunal
2.  Acting for a number of UK retailers in proceedings ongoing before the Competition Appeal Tribunal brought against MasterCard and Visa in respect of alleged breaches of EU and UK competition law (Cases 1481, 1515, 1486, 1505 & 1478/5/7/22)
3.  EU Truck Cartel – acting for UK Trucks Claim Limited in its application for a Collective Proceedings Order (Class Action) in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (Case 1282/7/7/18) seeking damages of £14 billion  on behalf of UK purchasers of trucks against participants of an anticompetitive cartel discovered by the European Commission
4.  Labinvesta v Dako & Agillent – acting for the claimant, a small UK business, alleging abuse of dominance by defendants in a refusal to supply case before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (Cases 1263 &  1273/5/7/16)
5. 5. Breasley & Ors v Vita – follow-on damages action in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (Case 1250/5/7/16) on behalf of 6 claimants seeking over £mult-million in damages. The case promptly settled
6. Waheeb & Latif v Tesco – a claim in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (Case 1247/5/7/16) on behalf of the claimant developers who alleged Tesco’s reliance on a restrictive covenant infringed competition Tesco agreed not to rely on the restrictive covenant and the case promptly settled
7. Agents’ Mutual v Gascoigne Halman – acting for the defendant real estate agency defending injunctive proceedings brought by the owner of the OnTheMarket property
8. Acting for a potential defendant in a follow-on damages claim and negotiating a settlement before court proceedings were issued
9. Acting for a Part 20 defendant in the Copper Fittings follow-on damages action before the High Court in respect of an EC decision
10. Advising a foreign company in respect of prospective stand-alone damages claims arising out of the EC investigation regarding the small- screen LCD cartel
11. Advising a number of direct and indirect purchasers in respect of prospective follow-on damages claims arising out of the EC’s Car Glass cartel decision and, separately, the EC’s Foam cartel decision
12. Imperial Tobacco v OFT – appeal before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (Case 1160/1/1/10) in respect of the OFT’s tobacco cartel-type decision – acting for Sainsbury’s as intervener (Sainsbury’s were the immunity applicant and Adam obtained that immunity
13. Quarmby Construction v OFT – appeal on behalf of a Yorkshire-based construction company before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (Case

1120/1/1/90) in respect of the OFT’s construction cartel decision and before the Court of Appeal

14. 2 Travel v Cardiff Bus – landmark follow-on damages action in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (Case 1178/5/7/11) in which exemplary damages were awarded for the first time in a competition case
15. Eden Brown v OFT – appeal before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (Case 1140/1/1/90) in respect of the OFT’s construction recruitment forum cartel decision
16. Replica Football Kit – acting for Allsports in its appeal before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (Case 1021/1/1/03)
17. Acting for an intervener before the ECJ in respect of an EC decision

Dominance

1. Acting for defendants regarding allegations of abuse of dominance in the High Court, competition list (BL – 2020 Liv 00000 and other threatened proceedings.
2. Acting for a US manufacturer defending allegations of dominance by a disgruntled UK distributor (Forum: ICC Arbitration)
3. Labinvesta v Dako & Agillent – acting for the claimant, a small UK business, alleging abuse of dominance by defendants in a refusal to supply case in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (Cases 1263 & 1273/5/7/16)
4. Advising the owners of an airport in respect of High Court proceedings being brought by a bus company against the operator of that airport for alleged abuse of dominance
5. Bringing court proceedings against Cardiff Bus which had been found to have abused its dominant position in the Bus sector: 2 Travel v Cardiff Bus (Case 1178/5/7/11)
6. Advising clients in respect of regulatory investigations into alleged abuses of dominance
7. Acting for companies defending abuse of dominance claims; one settled at mediation others ongoing
8. Acting for a company excluded from UK markets as a result of alleged abuses of dominance

Merger Control

Various mergers (phases I and II) before the OFT (as was), the CMA and the European Commission, including:

1. Health cash plans
2. Dental plans
3. Motor vehicle dealerships
4. Concrete roof tiles
5. Salt
6. Building societies
7. Grocery convenience stores
8. Pharmaceuticals
9. Textiles and carpet yarns
10. Health sector
11. Rental property market

GSCOP, Distribution Strategies & Compliance

1. Conducting arbitrations for claimants and defendants before the Groceries Code Adjudicator and advising on GSCOP
2. Advising various companies on their trading terms and UK and EU distribution strategies
3. Delivering dawn raid and compliance training and manuals

Public Procurement, Subsidy Control & Land Agreement

 Over the last decade, Adam has increasingly been called upon to advise local authorities and private companies on public procurement, subsidy control and restrictions affecting land, including:

1. Advising various local authorities on infrastructure and development schemes
2. Advising a tenderer in respect of a public procurement exercise run by a local authority which led to the revocation of the contract which had been awarded to a competitor, and a re-run of the tender
3. Advising a company when a council sought to enter the market and compete with it on commercial terms, thereby invoking the subsidy control/ State aid rules
4. Acting for a property developer whose £multi-million development would have been thwarted by a 100+ year restricted-use restrictive covenant which was successfully removed on the basis it was anti-competitive
5. Advising property owners and their advisors on funding, permitted use and restrictions in retail parks having regard to competition law and the subsidy control/State aid rules
6. Waheeb & Latif v Tesco (Case 1247/5/7/16) – a claim in the Competition Appeal Tribunal on behalf of developers challenging Tesco’s reliance on a restrictive covenant affecting the claimants’ land