lancs blue
Well-Known Member
The word "evidently" is one of the buffers referred to in 288.
From para. 286:
This point was also recognised in the advice of Helen Davies KC: “The standard of ‘evidently in excess of FMV’ should ensure that it is only obviously abusive transactions that are prevented and thus that there is no unintended collateral adverse effect on competition.”
Then in 288
However, having regard to the evidence of <redacted>
and <redacted>, we consider that the Amended APT Rules remove an important part of the previous buffer which was intended to reduce the risk of false positives.
The removal of this buffer is liable to increase the risk of a distortion of competition and to do so materially. In our view, it is important that the method chosen for
determining the FMV of an APT is sufficiently robust to, if not eliminate, at least reduce the risk of false positives. We are not persuaded by the evidence of Mr. Herbert
that these changes are either necessary or proportionate to the ensuring of the effectiveness of the PSR. His evidence does not grapple with the possible bespoke nature of sponsorship agreements.
289. Accordingly, we conclude that these changes are a restriction of competition by object.
