Gambling Act 2005 repeals all statutory provisions pre-
venting enforcement and provides that gambling con-
tracts are as enforceable as other contracts. The Gambling
Commission has the power to void a bet in specified
circumstances, e.g. where one of the parties believes that
the offence of cheating is likely to be committed in rela-
tion to the bet, and the Commission believes that the bet
was substantially unfair. If the bet is declared void any
money paid must be returned.
2 Anti-competitive agreements.Statutory control of
anti-competitive agreements in the UK is set out in the
Competition Act 1998 (CA 1998) and the Enterprise Act
2002 (EA 2002). The CA 1998 introduced a new regime
for dealing with anti-competitive practices based on
European Community competition law contained in
Arts 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty. The EA 2002 builds on
the changes made by the CA 1998 and introduces a
number of new measures to strengthen the UK’s com-
petition law framework.
Competition policy
Competition is an essential requirement of a free-market
economy. It encourages efficiency among producers and
suppliers by providing consumers with a choice of goods
and services at the best possible price. Paradoxically,
however, unregulated competition in a free market leads
inevitably to monopoly and other undesirable practices.
A company which is aggressively competitive will seek to
win as large a share of the market as is possible and in
so doing reduce the competition it faces. If the company
is too successful, it may in time completely eliminate any
competition. Another problem which may arise is that
companies may find it more profitable to co-operate
with each other than to compete. Companies within a
particular industry may form a cartel to fix minimum
prices for their products or restrict production, denying
consumers the benefits of a competitive market. Thus, it
is necessary to regulate the competitive process in order
to maintain a healthy free market which serves the inter-
ests of consumers. Statutory regulation of competition
in the UK is relatively recent. Before the enactment of
the Monopolies and Trade Practices Act 1948, the only
control over anti-competitive practices was the common
law doctrine of restraint of trade, but this was of limited
application. Statutory intervention was confined initially
to the establishment of an investigatory system but tough
powers to ban anti-competitive practices soon followed.
Competition law in the UK developed in a piecemeal
fashion after 1948 in response to changing needs and
circumstances.
By 1997 the law had become a complex mixture of UK
and EC provisions with responsibility for the enforce-
ment spread between a number of different agencies.
In 1997 the government announced its intention of
reforming UK competition law. The CA 1998 came into
force on 1 March 2000.
The EA 2002 introduces a wide range of measures
designed to enhance the UK’s enterprise capability. They
include modernising the insolvency laws, creating the
Office of Fair Trading as a statutory authority, and
strengthening consumer protection. The provisions
which deal with the reform of competition law are de-
signed to complement the changes introduced by the
CA 1998 and largely replace the Fair Trading Act 1973.
The competition law provisions of the EA 2002 came
into effect in June 2003.
An outline of the new legal framework is set out
below.European Community competition law
Under Arts 81 and 82 of the Treaty of Rome all agree-
ments between businesses which operate to prevent or
restrict competition in the EC are void. Article 81 bans
practices which distort competition between members
of the EC. These include price fixing, restrictions in
production and market sharing. The European Com-
mission may grant exemptions in relation to individual
agreements and block exemptions for certain categories
of agreement.Part 3Business transactions
244
Crehanv Inntrepreneur Pub Company
and Brewman Group Ltd(2003)
The claimant C was the tenant of two tied public houses
of which IPC, a property company, was the lessor and B
was the nominated supplier of beer. C’s pubs were not
successful and he surrendered the leases. C was sued
by B for unpaid deliveries of beer and C counterclaimed
for damages arguing that his business had failed be-
cause of competition from untied pubs that could buy
beer at a discount and retail it for less than C could as
a tied tenant. C claimed that the beer-tie agreement
infringed Art 81. IPC contended that the beer ties did not
breach Art 81 and, even if they did, they were protected