The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has decided in BAA's favour regarding allegations of apparent bias on the part of one of the Competition Commission (CC) group conducting the inquiry into BAA's supply of airport services in the UK.

BAA had argued that the participation of Professor Peter Moizer in the CC group working on this inquiry breached the principle of apparent bias, due to Professor Moizer's role as a long-standing fee paid advisor to the Greater Manchester Pension Fund. This fund sits within the ten local authorities of Greater Manchester and these authorities own Manchester Airport Group (MAG), which is a potential purchaser of the BAA assets ordered by the CC to be divested.

The CAT decided that a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias affecting the deliberations, thinking and ultimate outcome of the CC's investigation.

BAA also challenged the CC's requirement that BAA divest Stansted, Gatwick and either of Edinburgh and Glasgow, submitting that the timescale of less than two years for carrying out the divestments was too short and would lead to a loss in value. However, BAA failed in this part of its challenge, the CAT unanimously concluding that BAA had not demonstrated that the CC had failed to take account of relevant considerations when deciding on the timescale for the airport divestments.

BAA had proposed that the CAT quash the CC's requirement that BAA divest Stansted, Gatwick and either of Edinburgh and Glasgow. Whether the CAT will go this far is not yet clear, as the CAT needs first to hear further argument from BAA and the CC on appropriate relief in relation to the bias challenge, before it will decide how to proceed.

This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to www.law-now.com/law-now/mondaq

Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.

The original publication date for this article was 22/12/2009.