UK Competition Act, 1998 and the Enterprise Act, 2002

Competition Law · Unit II · Topic 6 of 18 · 5 min read

The British model the Indian Act most resembles: the Chapter I and Chapter II prohibitions, exemption and penalties under the Competition Act 1998, and the Enterprise Act 2002's cartel offence, merger control, market investigations and Competition Appeal Tribunal, with the later changes that created the CMA.

← All Competition Law topics Past papers

On this page

1. Before 1998
2. The Competition Act, 1998
3. The Enterprise Act, 2002
4. Later changes
How this is examined

Cases checked to exist. Read the judgment before quoting a holding.

Every case cited here has been checked to exist — the citation resolves and names the right parties. The propositions attributed to each case have not been verified line by line against the judgment. Case names link through to the full judgment: read it before quoting a holding in an examination answer, and never carry a proposition from notes into court on trust.

The examinable core. The Competition Act, 1998 has two prohibitions modelled on the EU Treaty: Chapter I (anti-competitive agreements, now Article 101 TFEU) and Chapter II (abuse of a dominant position, Article 102 TFEU). The Enterprise Act, 2002 added a criminal cartel offence, a new merger regime on the “substantial lessening of competition” test, market investigations, and the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The Indian Act of 2002, drafted in the same years, follows the same design.

1. Before 1998

British law was a patchwork: the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1976 required agreements of certain forms to be registered and examined by the Restrictive Practices Court; the Fair Trading Act, 1973 dealt with monopolies and mergers through references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; the Competition Act, 1980 handled anti-competitive practices. The system turned on the legal form of agreements rather than their effect — the same criticism the Raghavan Committee made of India’s MRTP Act. The 1998 Act repealed the form-based regime and adopted the effects-based EU model. It came into force on 1 March 2000.

2. The Competition Act, 1998

Chapter I prohibition (section 2). Agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade within the United Kingdom and have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the UK are prohibited. Section 2(2) gives examples — price fixing, limiting production, sharing markets, applying dissimilar conditions, and tying. Prohibited agreements are void (section 2(4)).

Exemption (section 9). An agreement is exempt if it (a) contributes to improving production or distribution or promoting technical or economic progress, while allowing consumers a fair share of the benefit, and (b) does not impose restrictions that are not indispensable, or give the parties the possibility of eliminating competition in a substantial part of the products. Parties assess this themselves; there is no notification system. Block exemptions exist for categories such as vertical agreements.

Chapter II prohibition (section 18). Any conduct by one or more undertakings which amounts to the abuse of a dominant position in a market, if it may affect trade within the UK, is prohibited. Examples: unfair purchase or selling prices, limiting production to the prejudice of consumers, discrimination, and tying. Dominance itself is not prohibited; the classic definition, adopted from EU law (United Brands v. Commission, 1978), is a position of economic strength enabling an undertaking to prevent effective competition and to behave to an appreciable extent independently of competitors, customers and consumers. Compare the Explanation (a) to section 4 of the Indian Act.

Investigation and penalties. The competition authority has powers to require documents and to enter and search premises (with a warrant where necessary). It may give directions to end an infringement, impose interim measures, and impose penalties of up to 10 per cent of the undertaking’s worldwide turnover (section 36). Leniency is available to cartel members who report. Private parties may claim damages, including in the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

Consistency with EU law. Section 60 originally required UK authorities and courts to interpret the Act consistently with EU law. After the UK left the EU, it was replaced by section 60A, which requires consistency with pre-exit EU case law subject to departure in specified circumstances.

3. The Enterprise Act, 2002

Cartel offence (section 188). An individual commits an offence by agreeing with others to make or implement arrangements under which undertakings engage in price fixing, limiting supply or production, market sharing or bid rigging. The penalty on indictment is imprisonment up to five years or an unlimited fine, or both. Originally the offence required dishonesty, which made convictions rare; the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act, 2013 removed that element for agreements made on or after 1 April 2014.
Merger control (Part 3). A “relevant merger situation” arises where two enterprises cease to be distinct and either the target’s UK turnover or the share of supply test is met. The substantive test is whether the merger has resulted or may be expected to result in a substantial lessening of competition (SLC). Notification is voluntary, but the authority can call in and investigate completed mergers, in two phases, and can block or impose remedies. Public interest grounds (such as national security) allow ministerial intervention.
Market investigations (Part 4). Where features of a market prevent, restrict or distort competition, without any single infringement, the market can be referred for in-depth investigation and remedies imposed. India has no direct counterpart, though the CCI conducts market studies.
Super-complaints (section 11). Designated consumer bodies can complain that a market feature is significantly harming consumers, and the authority must respond within 90 days.
Competition Appeal Tribunal. Established as a specialist tribunal to hear appeals on the merits against Competition Act decisions, judicial review of merger and market decisions, and damages claims.
Director disqualification. Directors of companies that infringe competition law can be disqualified for up to 15 years (competition disqualification orders, inserted into the Company Directors Disqualification Act, 1986).
Institutions. The Act abolished the post of Director General of Fair Trading and made the Office of Fair Trading a corporate body, with the Competition Commission handling in-depth merger and market inquiries.

4. Later changes

The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act, 2013 merged the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission into a single Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), which began work on 1 April 2014. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, 2024 lets the CMA designate firms with strategic market status in digital activities and impose conduct requirements on them, and strengthens consumer enforcement.

Comparison with India, in four lines. Chapter I corresponds to section 3, Chapter II to section 4, the SLC merger test to the AAEC test in section 6, and the 10 per cent worldwide turnover cap to section 27(b) as amended in 2023 (global turnover). The main differences: India has no criminal cartel offence for individuals (penalties on officers under section 48 are monetary), merger notification in India is mandatory and suspensory while the UK system is voluntary, and India has no market investigation regime.

How this is examined

June 2025 set “Explain the salient features of U.K. Competition Act” as the Unit II essay. Write it as section 2 above, with one paragraph on what came before and a closing paragraph comparing it to the Indian Act. If the question pairs the 1998 and 2002 Acts, give roughly equal space to each and keep the cartel offence, SLC test and CAT for the Enterprise Act half. As a short note, “Enterprise Act, 2002” is answered from section 3 alone.

Now try the real questions: Competition Law past question papers.