DOCSLIB.ORG

Middlesex University Research Repository an Open Access Repository Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Middlesex University Research Repository an Open Access Repository Of Middlesex University Research Repository An open access repository of Middlesex University research http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk Al Antali, Waleid (2018) Strengthening e-crime legislation in the UAE: learning lessons from the UK and the EU. PhD thesis, Middlesex University. [Thesis] Final accepted version (with author’s formatting) This version is available at: https://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/25909/ Copyright: Middlesex University Research Repository makes the University’s research available electronically. Copyright and moral rights to this work are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners unless otherwise stated. The work is supplied on the understanding that any use for commercial gain is strictly forbidden. A copy may be downloaded for personal, non-commercial, research or study without prior permission and without charge. Works, including theses and research projects, may not be reproduced in any format or medium, or extensive quotations taken from them, or their content changed in any way, without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). They may not be sold or exploited commercially in any format or medium without the prior written permission of the copyright holder(s). Full bibliographic details must be given when referring to, or quoting from full items including the author’s name, the title of the work, publication details where relevant (place, publisher, date), pag- ination, and for theses or dissertations the awarding institution, the degree type awarded, and the date of the award. If you believe that any material held in the repository infringes copyright law, please contact the Repository Team at Middlesex University via the following email address: [email protected] The item will be removed from the repository while any claim is being investigated. See also repository copyright: re-use policy: http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/policies.html#copy Strengthening e-crime legislation in the UAE: Learning lessons from the UK and the EU Waleid Al Antali M00474208 Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Middlesex University School of Law January 2018 1 Dedication My family are the most important persons to me and I dedicate this research to them. 2 Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors: Professor Julia Davidson, Dr Elena Martellozzo and Renu Barton-Hanson, Associate Professor of Law. I feel honoured to have been their PhD student. I appreciate all the time, helpful suggestions and ideas which have made my studies extremely stimulating. The continuous support, motivation and immense knowledge of my supervisors and dedication to their role was unparalleled. Much gratitude for the most helpful discussions. The guidance and mentoring I received from my supervisors was truly outstanding. Thank you to Middlesex University London which provided me with a fantastic academic environment for my research. I have the fondest memories of my research time. My time at Middlesex University also allowed me to make wonderful new friends. Additionally, I am immensely appreciative to my expert research interviewees, who have shared their knowledge and expertise with me. Thank you for agreeing to participate in my research. Your contributions were invaluable and formed the foundation of my research. I am indebted to His Highness Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan. Completion of this PhD would not have been possible without the excellent education I received, as well as the support which furthered my academic pursuits. I would also like to take the 3 opportunity to acknowledge that I was very privileged to be taught by many excellent teachers. I am deeply grateful to my family and friends for surrounding me with the love and encouragement I needed during this challenging period of my life. I would especially like to thank my dear sister Ibtissam and my loyal friend Mohamed for their unwavering support in helping me to meet this goal. 4 Abstract The electronic revolution brought with it technological innovations that are now integral to communication, business, commerce and the workings of governments all over the world. It also significantly changed the criminal landscape. Globally it has been estimated that crime conducted via the internet (e-crime) costs more than €290 billion annually. Formulating a robust response to cybercrime in law is a top priority for many countries that presents ongoing challenges. New cybercrime trends and behaviours are constantly emerging, and debates surrounding legal provisions to deal with them by increasing online tracking and surveillance are frequently accompanied by concerns of the rights of citizens to freedom, privacy and confidentiality. This research compares the ways that three different legislative frameworks have been navigating these challenges. Specifically, it examines the legal strategies of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU). The UAE is comparatively inexperienced in this area, its first law to address e-crime was adopted in 2006, sixteen years after the UK, and so the express purpose of this study is to investigate how e-crime legislation in the UAE can be strengthened. Drawing on a range of theoretical resources supplemented with empirical data, this research seeks to provide a comprehensive account of how key e-crime legislation has evolved in the UAE, the UK and the EU, and to evaluate how effective it has been in tackling cybercrime. Integral to this project is an analysis of some of the past and present controversies related to surveillance, data retention, data protection, privacy, non- disclosure and the public interest. An important corollary of this research is how e- 5 crime legislation is not only aligned with political and economic aims, but when looking at the UAE, the discrete ways that legislation can be circumscribed by cultural, social and religious norms comes into focus. 6 Abbreviations ACPO Association of Chief Police Officers CFR Charter of Fundamental Rights CJEU Court of Justice of the European Union CPS Crown Prosecution Service DDoS Distributed Denial of Service DIFC Dubai International Financial Centre DPP Director of Public Prosecution DRIPA 2014 Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 Du Emirates Integrated Telecommunications Company EC3 European Cybercrime Centre ECHR European Convention on Human Rights EEA European Economic Area ENISA European Network and Information Security Agency Etisalat Emirates Telecommunications Corporation FATF Financial Action Task Force FSC Federal Supreme Court GCC Gulf Cooperation Council GCHQ Government Communications Headquarters GDPR General Data Protection Regulation IP Intellectual Property 7 IPS Internet service providers IPT Investigatory Powers Tribunal IT Information technology ITCs Information Communication Technologies NPCC National Police Chiefs Council NSA National Security Agency NESA National Electronic Security Authority PACE Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 RIPA Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 SIAs Security and Intelligence Agencies SOCA Serious Organised Crime Agency SCEDEA Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency UK United Kingdom UAE United Arab Emirates VoIP Voice Over Internet Protocol VPN Virtual Private Network 8 Table of Contents Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ 3 Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................ 7 Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... 9 Chapter One: Introduction and Literature Review ................................................................. 13 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 13 1.1 The Significance and Importance of the Research Topic .................................................... 15 1.2 The Scope of the Research .................................................................................................. 21 1.3 Research Aim and Objectives ............................................................................................. 25 1.4 Structure of the Thesis ......................................................................................................... 26 1.5 Defining Cybercrime ........................................................................................................... 29 1.6 The Theoretical Context of and Applicable Social Science Literature on Cybercrime ................................................................................................................................ 37 1.7 Cybercrime Laws in the UK ................................................................................................ 49 1.8 The European Approach Towards Cybercrime ................................................................... 56 1.9 Cybercrime Laws in the UAE ............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gigabit-Broadband in the UK: Government Targets and Policy
    BRIEFING PAPER Number CBP 8392, 30 April 2021 Gigabit-broadband in the By Georgina Hutton UK: Government targets and policy Contents: 1. Gigabit-capable broadband: what and why? 2. Gigabit-capable broadband in the UK 3. Government targets 4. Government policy: promoting a competitive market 5. Policy reforms to help build gigabit infrastructure Glossary www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary 2 Gigabit-broadband in the UK: Government targets and policy Contents Summary 3 1. Gigabit-capable broadband: what and why? 5 1.1 Background: superfast broadband 5 1.2 Do we need a digital infrastructure upgrade? 5 1.3 What is gigabit-capable broadband? 7 1.4 Is telecommunications a reserved power? 8 2. Gigabit-capable broadband in the UK 9 International comparisons 11 3. Government targets 12 3.1 May Government target (2018) 12 3.2 Johnson Government 12 4. Government policy: promoting a competitive market 16 4.1 Government policy approach 16 4.2 How much will a nationwide gigabit-capable network cost? 17 4.3 What can a competitive market deliver? 17 4.4 Where are commercial providers building networks? 18 5. Policy reforms to help build gigabit infrastructure 20 5.1 “Barrier Busting Task Force” 20 5.2 Fibre broadband to new builds 22 5.3 Tax relief 24 5.4 Ofcom’s work in promoting gigabit-broadband 25 5.5 Consumer take-up 27 5.6 Retiring the copper network 28 Glossary 31 ` Contributing Authors: Carl Baker, Section 2, Broadband coverage statistics Cover page image copyright: Blue Fiber by Michael Wyszomierski.
    [Show full text]
  • Communications Bill (Volume II)
    Communications Bill (Volume II) The Bill is divided into two volumes. Volume I contains Clauses 1 to 355. Volume II contains Clauses 356 to 403 and the Schedules. CONTENTS PART 1 FUNCTIONS OF OFCOM Transferred and assigned functions 1 Functions and general powers of OFCOM 2 Transfer of functions of pre-commencement regulators General duties in carrying out functions 3 General duties of OFCOM 4 Duties for the purpose of fulfilling Community obligations 5 Directions in respect of networks and spectrum functions 6 Duties to review regulatory burdens 7 Duty to carry out impact assessments 8Duty to publish and meet promptness standards 9 Secretary of State’s powers in relation to promptness standards Media literacy 10 Duty to promote media literacy OFCOM’s Content Board 11 Duty to establish and maintain Content Board 12 Functions of the Content Board Functions for the protection of consumers 13 Consumer research 14 Duty to publish and take account of research 15 Consumer consultation 16 Membership etc. of the Consumer Panel 17 Committees and other procedure of the Consumer Panel 18 Power to amend remit of Consumer Panel HL Bill 41 53/2 iv Communications Bill International matters 19 Representation on international and other bodies 20 Directions for international purposes in respect of broadcasting functions General information functions 21 Provision of information to the Secretary of State 22 Community requirement to provide information 23 Publication of information and advice for consumers etc. Employment in broadcasting 24 Training and equality of opportunity Charging 25 General power to charge for services Guarantees 26 Secretary of State guarantees for OFCOM borrowing Provisions supplemental to transfer of functions 27 Transfers of property etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Centre for Law, Economics and Society Research Paper Series: 1/2019
    Centre for Law, Economics and Society Research Paper Series: 1/2019 Are Economists Kings? Economic Evidence and Discretionary Assessments at the UK Utility Regulatory Agencies Despoina Mantzari Centre for Law, Economics and Society CLES Faculty of Laws, UCL Director: Professor Ioannis Lianos CLES Research Paper Series 1/2019 Are Economists Kings? Economic Evidence and Discretionary Assessments at the UK Utility Regulatory Agencies Despoina Mantzari June 2019 Centre for Law, Economics and Society (CLES) Faculty of Laws, UCL London, WC1H 0EG The CLES Research Paper Series can be found at www.ucl.ac.uk/cles/research-papers Pre-published version of: Despoina Mantzari, ‘Are Economists Kings? Economic Evidence and Discretionary Assessments at the UK Utility Regulatory Agencies’, Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, DOI: 10.1093/jaenfo/jnaa007 All rights reserved. No part of this paper may be reproduced in any form without permission of the author ISBN 978-1-910801-25-3 © Despoina Mantzari 2019 Centre for Law, Economics and Society Faculty of Laws, UCL London, WC1H 0EG United Kingdom ARE ECONOMISTS KINGS? ECONOMIC EVIDENCE AND DISCRETIONARY ASSESSMENTS AT THE UK UTILITY REGULATORY AGENCIES Despoina Mantzari* * Lecturer in Competition Law and Policy, University College London, Faculty of Laws. Email: [email protected]. I thank Ioannis Lianos, Diamond Ashiagbor, Stephen Littlechild, Andriani Kalintiri, Maria Ioannidou, the two anonymous reviewers, as well as participants at the IALS 2018 Lunchtime seminar series, the UCL Laws 2019 Lunchtime Research Seminars, the Annual Meeting of Law and Society 2018, the UK IVR conference 2017 (where an early draft of this paper received the ‘best early career paper prize’) as well as stakeholders of the Essential Services Access Network (ESAN) and policymakers at UK Office for Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) for helpful comments and discussions on earlier versions of this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Technology, Media and Telecommunications Review
    Telecommunications Review Telecommunications the Technology, Media and and Media Technology, Technology, Media and Telecommunications Review Eleventh Edition Editor Matthew T Murchison Eleventh Edition lawreviews © 2020 Law Business Research Ltd Technology, Media and Telecommunications Review Eleventh Edition Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd This article was first published in December 2020 For further information please contact [email protected] Editor Matthew T Murchison lawreviews © 2020 Law Business Research Ltd PUBLISHER Tom Barnes SENIOR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Nick Barette BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Joel Woods SENIOR ACCOUNT MANAGERS Pere Aspinall, Jack Bagnall ACCOUNT MANAGERS Olivia Budd, Katie Hodgetts, Reece Whelan PRODUCT MARKETING EXECUTIVE Rebecca Mogridge RESEARCH LEAD Kieran Hansen EDITORIAL COORDINATOR Gavin Jordan PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS DIRECTOR Adam Myers PRODUCTION EDITOR Anna Andreoli SUBEDITOR Martin Roach CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Nick Brailey Published in the United Kingdom by Law Business Research Ltd, London Meridian House, 34–35 Farringdon Street, London, EC4A 4HL, UK © 2020 Law Business Research Ltd www.TheLawReviews.co.uk No photocopying: copyright licences do not apply. The information provided in this publication is general and may not apply in a specific situation, nor does it necessarily represent the views of authors’ firms or their clients. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any legal action based on the information provided. The publishers
    [Show full text]
  • Communications Bill 311 Part 4 — Licensing of TV Reception
    Communications Bill 311 Part 4 — Licensing of TV reception PART 4 LICENSING OF TV RECEPTION 353 Licence required for use of TV receiver (1) A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part. 5 (2) A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence. (3) A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his control who— (a) intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or 10 (b) knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection, is guilty of an offence. (4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. 15 (5) Subsection (1) is not contravened by anything done in the course of the business of a dealer in television receivers solely for one or more of the following purposes— (a) installing a television receiver on delivery; (b) demonstrating, testing or repairing a television receiver. 20 (6) The Secretary of State may by regulations exempt from the requirement of a licence under subsection (1) the installation or use of television receivers— (a) of such descriptions, (b) by such persons, (c) in such circumstances, and 25 (d) for such purposes, as may be provided for in the regulations. (7) Regulations under subsection (6) may make any exemption for which such regulations provide subject to compliance with such conditions as may be specified in the regulations.
    [Show full text]
  • AUTHORITY REQUESTS for ACCESS to ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION – Legal Overview
    AUTHORITY REQUESTS FOR ACCESS TO ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION – legal overview MAY 2015 CONTENTS MAY 2015 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION | P 3 NORWAY | PAGE 33 SWEDEN | PAGE 43 DENMARK | PAGE 14 HUNGARY* SERBIA | PAGE 37 MONTENEGRO | PAGE 25 BULGARIA | PAGE 8 PAKISTAN* INDIA* BANGLADESH | PAGE 5 MYANMAR | PAGE 30 THAILAND | PAGE 48 MALAYSIA | PAGE 18 * these countries are covered in other reports, see ‘Introduction’ DISCLAIMER: Telenor Group is thankful for Hogan Lovells’ assistance in preparing this legal overview. Hogan Lovells has acted solely as legal adviser to Telenor Group. This overview may not be relied upon as legal advice by any other person, and neither Telenor Group nor Hogan Lovells accept any responsibility or liability (whether arising in tort (including negligence), contract or otherwise) to any other person in relation to [this report] or its contents or any reliance which any other person may place upon it. COPYRIGHT LICENSE: This legal overview is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License 2015 by Telenor ASA 2 PB INTRODUCTION MAY 2015 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION rights to privacy and freedom of expression; others use much wider-ranging powers with substantially greater human rights This document provides an overview of the most common kinds impacts. Some of the statutes in question are lengthy and of laws which compel the Telenor Group to give government contain carefully expressed checks and balances. Others are authorities access to customer communications in ten of the only a few pages long, with unchecked and sweeping powers countries in which Telenor operates. The remaining three set out in a few short sentences.
    [Show full text]
  • Confirmation Decision Under Section 139A of the Communications Act
    Confirmation decision under section 139A of the Communications Act 2003 relating to contravention of information requirements Confirmation Decision issued to British Telecommunications plc by the Office of Communications (“Ofcom”) Non-confidential version Redactions are indicated with [] Issue Date: 5 April 2017 Confirmation decision under section 139A of the Communications Act 2003 About this document This document sets out Ofcom’s confirmation that British Telecommunications plc (“BT”) has contravened requirements to provide information in response to statutory information requests made by Ofcom under sections 135 and 191 of the Communications Act 2003. These findings relate to BT’s responses to three separate requests by Ofcom for information concerning the provision by BT of Ethernet services. This document also sets out Ofcom’s decision that it is appropriate and proportionate in this case to impose a penalty on BT in respect of the contraventions it has identified. 1 Confirmation decision under section 139A of the Communications Act 2003 Contents Section Page 1 Introduction and Background 3 2 Confirmation of contravention of the BCMR s135 Notice 7 3 Confirmation of contravention of the Dispute s191 Notice 12 4 Confirmation of contravention of the Investigation s135 Notice 17 5 Penalty 21 Annex Page 1 Legal framework 27 2 Notification 31 3 List of additional annexes 34 Confirmation decision under section 139A of the Communications Act 2003 Section 1 1 Introduction and Background 1.1 This document confirms that we are satisfied that British Telecommunications plc (“BT”) has contravened requirements to provide information in response to statutory information requests made by Ofcom under sections 135 and 191 of the Communications Act 2003 (the “Act”).
    [Show full text]
  • Modernise Or Decline Policies to Maintain the Universal Postal
    Modernise or decline Policies to maintain the universal postal service in the United Kingdom. 16 December 2008 An independent review of the UK postal services sector Richard Hooper CBE | Dame Deirdre Hutton | Ian R Smith Cm 7529 £26.60 Modernise or decline Policies to maintain the universal postal service in the United Kingdom. 16 December 2008 An independent review of the UK postal services sector Richard Hooper CBE | Dame Deirdre Hutton | Ian R Smith Cm 7529 £26.60 0 Crown Copyright 2008 The text in this document (excluding the Royal Arms and other departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context.The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the document specified. Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. For any other use of this material please write to Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU or e-mail: [email protected] ISBN:9780101752923 Contents Acknowledgements 4 Headlines 6 Executive summary 8 Introduction 18 PART 1: SOME BASIC FACTS 22 A brief guide to the postal service 23 Not the Post Office 24 Who uses postal services? 24 Definition of the postal market 25 The letters process 27 The introduction of competition 28 PART 2: THE ISSUES 30 Post matters 31 What is the universal service? 32 What difference does it make? 32 Public opinion 32 Residential
    [Show full text]
  • High Court Judgment Template
    Neutral Citation Number: [2020] EWCA CIV 183 Case No: A4/2019/1337-1340 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES COMMERCIAL COURT (QBD) [2019] EWHC 1234 (Comm) Rolls Building Royal Courts of Justice Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 19/02/2020 Before: SIR GEOFFREY VOS, CHANCELLOR OF THE HIGH COURT LORD JUSTICE UNDERHILL, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) and LORD JUSTICE SIMON B E T W E E N : VODAFONE LIMITED TELEFÓNICA UK LIMITED EE LIMITED HUTCHISON 3G UK LIMITED Claimants/Respondents - and - THE OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS Defendant/Appellant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms Monica Carss-Frisk QC and Ms Emily Neill (instructed by Towerhouse LLP) for Vodafone Ltd Mr Tom de la Mare QC and Mr Tom Richards (instructed by DWF Law LLP) for Telefónica UK Ltd Mr Daniel Cashman (instructed directly) for Hutchison 3G Ltd Mr Steven Elliott QC and Mr Philip Woolfe (instructed by BT Legal) for EE Ltd Mr Tom Weisselberg QC, Mr Ajay Ratan and Mr Andrew Trotter (instructed directly) for OFCOM Hearing dates: 28th, 29th and 30th January 2020 Approved Judgment I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic. ............................. Vodafone & others v. OFCOM Approved Judgment Sir Geoffrey Vos, Chancellor of the High Court: Introduction 1. The issue before the court in this appeal is beguilingly simple. The 2015 Regulations1 made by The Office of Communications, the defendant and appellant (“Ofcom”), were quashed by the Court of Appeal on 22nd November 2017 in EE Ltd v.
    [Show full text]
  • Condoc.Pdf (PDF File, 229.2
    Simplifying non-geographic numbers – change of implementation date Proposal to move the implementation date of the new rules governing Freephone and revenue sharing ranges from 26 June 2015 to 1 July 2015 Consultation Publication date: 19 January 2015 Closing date for responses: 20 February 2015 Change of implementation date for change to Freephone and revenue sharing ranges About this document This document is a consultation on changing the implementation date for the introduction of the new rules governing Freephone (080 and 116) and revenue sharing number ranges (084/087/09/118). In December 2013 Ofcom decided to change the regulation of Freephone and the revenue sharing number ranges. The changes were that: • Freephone should be free to callers from all telephones (fixed or mobile); • Revenue sharing ranges should be billed in an unbundled manner – that the caller charge should be in two parts, a service charge which is the portion of the charge passed back to the party being called and an access charge which is the charge set by the caller’s phone company. The date set in our regulations for implementation of these new rules was 26 June 2015. However, we have received widespread representations from the industry that for billing and communications purposes, and for the benefit of consumers, a start date at the beginning of a calendar month would be preferable. We are, therefore, consulting on changing to the implementation date to 1 July 2015. Change of implementation date for change to Freephone and revenue sharing ranges Contents
    [Show full text]
  • History of BT
    BT is the world’s oldest telecommunications company. Its origins date back to the establishment of the first telecommunications companies in the United Kingdom. Among them was the first commercial telegraph service, the Electric Telegraph Company, introduced in 1846. As these companies amalgamated and were taken over or collapsed, the survivors were eventually transferred to state control under the Post Office. They later became a privatised company, British Telecommunications plc - the forerunner of today’s global communications company, BT Group plc, which serves customers in 170 countries. The Post Office The United Kingdom telephone service in its early period from 1878 was provided by private sector companies such as the National Telephone Company (NTC), with the General Post Office (GPO) soon in competition. In 1896, the GPO took over the NTC trunk telephone service. In 1912, it became the monopoly supplier of the telephone service when the GPO took over the whole private sector telephone service in the UK, except for a few local authority services. These municipal services all folded within a few years of set up, the sole exception being the city of Kingston-upon-Hull where the city telephone department became present day Kingston Communications. The idea of converting the Post Office into a nationalised industry rather than a government department was first raised as early as 1932 in a book published by Lord Wolmer called Post Office Reform. Also in 1932, the Bridgeman Committee was formed, 'to enquire and report as to whether any changes to the constitution, status or system of organisation of the Post Office would be in the public interest'.
    [Show full text]
  • 1302/3/3/19 Virgin Media Limited V Office of Communications
    Neutral citation [2020] CAT 5 IN THE COMPETITION Case No: 1302/3/3/19 APPEAL TRIBUNAL Salisbury Square House 27 January 2020 8 Salisbury Square London EC4Y 8AP Before: THE HON MRS JUSTICE FALK (Chairman) MR EAMONN DORAN MR SIMON HOLMES Sitting as a Tribunal in England and Wales BETWEEN: VIRGIN MEDIA LIMITED Appellant - v - OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS Respondent Heard at Victoria House on 19-20 November 2019 JUDGMENT (NON-CONFIDENTIAL VERSION) APPEARANCES Mr Robert Palmer QC and Mr Stefan Kuppen (instructed by Ashurst LLP) appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Mr Javan Herberg QC and Mr Tom Coates (instructed by Ofcom Legal) appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Note: Excisions in this Judgment (marked “[]”) relate to commercially confidential information: Schedule 4, paragraph 1 to the Enterprise Act 2002. 2 CONTENTS A. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 4 B. LEGAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................................. 4 (1) The regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services ........................................................................... 5 (2) Enforcement of conditions of the general authorisation .................... 9 (3) Right of appeal ..................................................................................... 11 (4) ETCs and consumer rights legislation ............................................... 12 C. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................
    [Show full text]