And therefore if they did make the change, they would be admitting it existed and would be liable to pay out?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Collective competition claim against Govia Thameslink Railway
- Thread starter furlong
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Egg Centric
Established Member
It certainly seems clear cut when put this way but there is surely a reason that no one is funding it any more, which may or may not be to do with prospects for success. In simple terms what were the arguments by GTR the other way?
Good point, but maybe they could say it is precautionary just in case. Either way there has now almost been as much time since the first filing as there was between that and the issue arising [30 Sept 2015 per the claim].
I am not a lawyer, but the idea that maintaining competition prevents a single TOC running multiple brands, yet if all the TOCs are part of a government monopoly, competition rules don't apply, seems just a little Alice in Wonderland to me.
This is what puzzles me. I know nothing about NRCoT, the TSA or collective cases but based on the comments here it sounded like this was clearly not allowed, so in my naive mind, I would have thought this was an easy win for a law firm; guaranteed win and legal fees. So what am I missing?
I think some posters on the forum tend to post their opinions with an air of authority such that there can’t be any disagreement with their interpretation.
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 24,842
Are you referring to me?
There are plenty of arguments put forward, but perhaps the major one is that competition law doesn't apply to a company that does not have commercial autonomy separate from the government:
This does show how this is definitely a non-issue post nationalization, the question in this part is how much autonomy in these areas did GTR have under regulation of fares and the operating agreements they had with the DfT.
Egg Centric
Established Member
Thanks. I see that that quote is from a court transcript related to this.
Seems clear to me that this is something I don't have enough understanding to actually have an opinion on who is right and wrong. I guess that's why it was going to court in the first place.
Swedenorer
Member
For me that was the nub of the issue and it always seemed to me that eventually - all things otherwise remaining the same - that GTR would have to argue that it was not one TOC but a group of the same. Now I'm not saying that this would have succeeded but in any case like this you never know but I think I can suspect the line of argument. The other route of argument would end up with some lengthy debate on the definition of 'Brand'. I wonder of some took comfort from the fact that apparently it suited GTR to back down when challenged on this by individuals but again I suspect this would alwys have been done on a gesture of goodwill basis. In a way it's disappointing that apparently we'll never now know what arguments GTR were going to run I think it would have been fascinating.
The NRCoT define what a TOC is and if they define Gatwick Express to be a TOC, then for the purpose of that agreement it is a TOC.
The TSA and NRCoT are different agreements between different parties and are not to be read together.
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 24,842
Indeed.
They define Gatwick Express as one of the trading names of GTR.
The proceedings have been decertified by the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which means the claim is over.
GTR is quoted as saying 'GTR welcomes the end of the proceedings. We have always been clear that we acted lawfully and fairly towards our passengers.'
Rail fares class action runs out of steam
Five-year-old collective proceedings decertified after failure to find a new class representative.www.lawgazette.co.uk
The ill-fated collective proceedings over allegedly unlawfully inflated fares on the London to Brighton rail line have been decertified by the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The claim, filed in 2021, had a turbulent history including the death of the original class representative and a court battle between would-be replacements.
Boyle v Govia Thameslink Railway has been stayed since June last year when the original class representative, David Courtney Boyle, died from Parkinson's disease. A judgment published by the CAT this month reveals that no new class representative has emerged and the collective proceedings order has been revoked.
An update on the GTR Collective Proceedings website informs potential claimants that the proceedings have been decertified on the basis of a CAT order in April. A hearing to determine the parties' costs has been adjourned for the next available date after 6 November. 'Please note this website will be closed shortly,' the update concludes.
Last edited:
I heard the relationship between the funder and the solicitors broke down; furthermore there was a breakdown in relations between the first economists and the solicitors, and both sets of economists had astronomical costs.
All of this, combined with the death of the class rep, made it very difficult for the case to continue. The funders attempted to appoint their own choice of class rep, and would then have appointed new solicitors, however they couldn't get insurance to do that. I understand the funders are also in financial difficulties due to other matters.
The case was also became increasingly expensive, due to DfT throwing huge amounts of taxpayers money at it; DfT were very worried as they know full well that GTR are absolutely guilty. The DfT effectively instructed GTR to act contrary to the Ticketing Settlement Agreement and Conditions of Travel, as well as encouraging GTR to abuse their dominant market position.
More accurate would be 'GTR welcomes the end of the proceedings. We have always been clear that we should be allowed to get away with acting unlawfully and unfairly towards our passengers', and indeed they will continue to get away with it, unless someone else takes on the case, starting from scratch.
I saw the article cite £70k and that was only a partial amount so far. I know legal costs can be pretty extreme but I am astonished that they have reached that level for what is essentially a purely legal defence on a point of wording (I can't imagine any need for specialist witness statements etc, the background is surely irrelevant only the wording as it stands today?)