Law cases used in International Business Law

Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne (1933)

In this case, the court pierced the corporate veil, holding that a company set up by an individual to avoid restrictive covenants was a mere sham and thus, the individual was personally liable. This decision was based on the evasion principle, where the corporate form was being used to evade legal obligations.

Jones v Lipman (1962)

The court pierced the corporate veil where a company was created to avoid a specific performance order in a contract for the sale of land. The company was deemed to be a facade to mask the true purpose of avoiding contractual obligations, making Mr. Lipman personally liable.

Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd (2013)

This case clarified the conditions under which the corporate veil can be pierced. The Supreme Court held that veil-piercing is only justified in cases of evasion, where the corporate structure is used to evade an existing legal obligation. It emphasized that veil-piercing is a remedy of last resort.

Höfner and Elsner v Macrotron (1991)

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) defined an undertaking as 'every entity engaged in an economic activity,' which encompasses any activity consisting in offering goods and services on a given market. This case clarified the broad application of competition law to various entities engaged in economic activities.

Ambulanz Glöckner (2001)

The ECJ further defined ‘economic activity’ and held that even non-profit organizations could be considered undertakings if they engage in activities that compete with other economic entities.

Consten & Grundig (1966)

The ECJ distinguished between restrictions by object and restrictions by effect. Restrictions by object are inherently anticompetitive and do not require further analysis of their actual effects on the market.

GSK (General Court, 2009)

The court held that certain restrictions by object, such as agreements fixing prices or limiting production, are automatically considered anticompetitive without needing to assess their actual impact on the market.

LTM/MBU (1966)

This case emphasized the need for a full examination of the effects on competition in the absence of restrictive object, requiring a comparison of competition levels before and after the agreement.

Völk (1969)

The ECJ ruled that agreements with only an insignificant effect on the relevant market fall outside the scope of Article 101(1) TFEU, highlighting the importance of the de minimis principle in competition law.

Expedia (2012)

The ECJ confirmed that agreements which have an anticompetitive object cannot benefit from the de minimis exemption, regardless of the market share of the parties involved.

Hoffmann-La Roche (1979)

This case defined dominance as a position of economic strength that allows an undertaking to prevent effective competition and behave independently of its competitors, customers, and consumers. The court also emphasized that dominance itself is not illegal, only its abuse is prohibited.

AKZO/ECS (1991)

The ECJ established a presumption of dominance for companies with a market share above 50%, reinforcing the legal threshold for presumed market power.

Michelin I (1983)

The ECJ clarified that an undertaking in a dominant position has a special responsibility not to impair genuine competition and that abuse can be identified without proving intent.

Kelly v GE Healthcare (2009)

This case dealt with patent rights and emphasized that inventions created by employees in the course of their employment typically belong to the employer.