Charles Balmain

White & Case (London)
Lawyer (Partner)

Charles Balmain is a partner in the London Dispute Resolution group of White & Case. He deals with a broad range of contentious matters on behalf of corporate clients and financial institutions. Charles has acted for clients in litigation before the High Court and Court of Appeal and also represents clients in international arbitrations, principally conducted under ICC rules. Charles has experience of UK and EU competition law and advises on contentious and non-contentious competition matters. He has also practised in the Firm’s Paris and Brussels offices.

Distinctions

Linked authors

Pinsent Masons (London)
Ince & Co
White & Case (London)
Reed Smith (London)
Herbert Smith Freehills
White & Case (London)
JPTT & Partners
White & Case (Brussels)

Articles

33128 Bulletin

Börries Ahrens, Charles Balmain The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf upholds a judgment of the Regional Court of Düsseldorf in a cartel in the cement sector (German cement cartel)

223

Cartel Damage Claims, a Belgian SPV for the collection of follow-on damages in antitrust litigation, has lost an appeal against six members of the so-called German cement cartel. On 18 February 2015, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf upheld a judgment of the Regional Court of Düsseldorf (...)

Charles Balmain, Jean-Paul Tran Thiet, Mark Gidley, Mark Powell The English Court of Appeal requires French defendants to comply with disclosure orders despite the French "blocking statute" (Secretary of State for Health / Servier Laboratories)

135

The existence in several countries of “blocking statutes”, which prohibit the provision of economic information to foreign authorities or courts (or require prior authorization to be obtained before doing so), present a challenge to those managing international litigation and (...)

Charles Balmain, John Reynolds The UK Government opts in to class actions

128

Government proposals in brief The Government’s proposals are contained in its response to the consultation on options for reform of private competition actions in the UK. The proposals seek to establish the CAT as the major venue for competition actions in the UK. Most notably, they would give (...)

Charles Balmain, Iva Philipova The UK Court of Appeal overturns the first ever finding by the High Court of an abuse of dominance pursuant to Art. 82 EC (Attheraces/British Horseracing Board)

5352

Background A recent decision of the Court of Appeal has reversed the first ever High Court finding of an Article 82 infringement in litigation between private parties. Attheraces v British Horseracing Board was an appeal from the High Court decision of Justice Etherton. The Judge who had held (...)

Charles Balmain, Iva Philipova The UK House of Lords issues a landmark judgment on delineation of the spheres of competence of the EC Commission and the national courts in the context of the decentralization of EC competition law (Crehan)

2622

House of Lords, 19 July 2006, Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) and others v. Crehan, [2006] UKHL 38 The Background This is a recent development in the long line of tying cases in the UK beer market. In this case, the House of Lords allowed the appeal of Inntrepreneur Pub Company against an (...)

Charles Balmain, James Johnson The UK Competition Appeals Tribunal receives the first claim for damages based on abuse of dominant position (Healthcare at Home / Genzyme)

8912

Healthcare at Home Limited (“HH”) has brought a claim for damages before the Competition Appeals Tribunal (“CAT”) against Genzyme Limited (“GL”) pursuant to section 47A of the Competition Act 1998. This is the third claim for damages to have been brought before the CAT pursuant to section 47A of the (...)

Carrie Angell, Charles Balmain The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal decides for the first time on claims for damages for breach of Art. 81 EC under national competition provision (Vitamins)

4165

Background These two cases, heard concurrently before the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT” or “Tribunal”) were the first (and so far the only) claims for damages to be brought pursuant to Section 47A of the Competition Act 1998 (the “Act”). Section 47A of the Act is a significant legislative (...)

Charles Balmain The UK High Court emphasises the need for claimants to ensure that they have robust evidence of alleged breach in order to avoid being thrown out on summary judgment (Wireless / RAJAR)

5215

Mr. Justice Lloyd’s recent judgment in the Wireless / RAJAR case (handed down on 16 December 2004), demonstrates certain of the procedural and evidential difficulties faced by private litigants seeking damages for alleged breaches of competition law before the English Courts. The Claimant, (...)

Send a message