Subscribe to this blog's feedColleagues of the great man were much intrigued by last week’s ruling by the Competition Commission on the first appeal of an energy code issue under the new provisions of the 2004 Energy Act.
The secretariat ran out of copies of the judgement for those who turned up to hear the panel pronounce. Bizarrely, the commission’s comments took up very little time, no more than 10 to 15 minutes.
The real drama came when the parties were asked to comment on how the costs of the appeal – a six figure sum – should be apportioned.
Ofgem, which hardly covered itself in glory, argued that despite losing (in part), it shouldn’t have to stump up because this might deter it from it defending itself in the future. Its QC tendentiously advanced the proposition that it had defended itself at the commission in the public interest, but might think twice in the future if it had to meet a big slab of the costs.
Be that as it may. What got Disconnector’s colleague’s goat was the two hours the QCs spent arguing about who should pay what. Unfortunately, some of the top legal brains on show had forgotten about the need to let the assembled multitude hear what they were saying. They muttered inaudibly into their microphones.
Eon UK’s legal supremo, Alan Griffiths, was the worst offender. Maybe it’s time he was shuffled off to a course which would help him project better.
Just a thought.
