Charles Balmain is a partner in the Global Commercial Litigation Practice. He brings a strong international perspective to formal court or arbitral proceedings, representing clients in precedent-setting disputes before the English courts and in multiple offshore jurisdictions, as well as in numerous international arbitrations, principally conducted under ICC or LCIA rules. Charles Balmain formerly served as head of the firm’s EMEA Disputes Section for Commercial Litigation and White Collar practitioners. He has previously practiced in White & Case’s Brussels and Paris offices. With a background in EU law, Charles has also successfully acted for clients in numerous competition damages claims before both the Competition Appeal Tribunal and the High Court, as well as in market and merger inquiries performed by the UK competition authorities.
13
In BritNed v ABB, the English Court of Appeal substantially reduced the UK’s first award of damages in a so-called cartel damages claim brought for breach of European competition law. In so doing, the Court rejected calls for a more strict and punitive approach to damages in cartel claims. The (...)
229
The entry into force of the UK Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the “CRA”) on 1 October 2015 marks the introduction of opt-out class actions in the UK, further transforming the legal landscape for private damages claims in the UK. Together with further changes as a result of the UK’s implementation of (...)
359
This article has been nominated for the 2016 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. 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 (...)
236
This article has been nominated for the 2014 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. The existence in several countries of “blocking statutes”, which prohibit the provision of economic information to foreign authorities or courts (or require prior (...)
199
This article has been nominated for the 2014 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. Government proposals in brief The Government’s proposals are contained in its response to the consultation on options for reform of private competition actions (...)
137
As widely expected, earlier this week the Government announced proposals for reform of the private competition damages regime in the UK, proposing to increase the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s (CAT) power and introduce an opt-out “collective action” scheme before the CAT . The proposed changes (...)
1619
On 22 May 2009, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in BCL v BASF , ruling that the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”), had erred in allowing what was, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal, a time-barred damages claim to proceed. The judgment will provide welcome legal certainty to (...)
5540
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 (...)
2727
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 (...)
9075
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 (...)
4828
Background In 1994, Eurotunnel (a joint venture operated by the eighth and ninth defendants, Channel Tunnel Group Limited and France Manche SA, respectively) entered into a contractual relationship with Transferry SPA and ET Plus Lux SA (the sixth and seventh claimants) whereby the claimants (...)
4282
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 (...)
5336
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, (...)
19 avenue Jean Aicard
75011 Paris, France
106 West 32nd Street, Suite 149
New York, NY, 10001, USA
563 Chiswick High Road
W4 3AY London, UK
