Frontier Publications
- Keep 'em un-coordinatedCoordinated effects in mergersBulletin | 19.08.2010.
- The times, they’re a changin’Using economics to adapt to climate changeBulletin | 11.08.2010.
- Taking the strain Risk-sharing in UK rail frachisingBulletin | 01.08.2010.
- Necessary inventionsEconomic policies to increas low-carbon innovationBulletin | 15.07.2010.
- Economic Analysis of the RSPTWith a postscript on the negotiated outcomePaper | 05.07.2010.
- Not patently obviousHolders of patents and the Australian Trade Practices ActBulletin | 30.06.2010.
- Shelf lifeUsing promotions effectivelyBulletin | 10.06.2010.
- RPI-X@20: Output measures in the future regulatory frameworkA report prepared for OfgemPaper | 31.05.2010.
- RPI-X@20: The future role of benchmarking in regulatory reviewsA final report prepared for OfgemPaper | 31.05.2010.
- Public competitionThe choices facing the UK government after the electionBulletin | 29.04.2010.
What if, but for?
Enron versus EWSThe first follow-on claim for damages to reach trial in the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) was triggered by a finding of unlawful discrimination between customers by the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR). The claim was unsuccessful; and the case offered important insights into the standard of evidence required of claimants. In particular, it illuminated the way a court will consider arguments about how parties might have behaved in a “but for” world - one in which competition law infringement had not taken place. Frontier’s Zoltan Biro provided expert economic evidence for the defendants.
 Frontier bulletin - What if, but for.pdf |
 Printer friendly |