Mergers in UK Law

At the other, there is "nearly complete", as where someone says that he is in substantial agreement with what has just been said. The courts have repeatedly warned against the dangers of taking an inherently imprecise word, and by redefining it thrusting on it a spurious degree of precision.

In such a case the court is entitled to substitute its own opinion for that of the person to whom the decision has been entrusted only if the decision is so aberrant that it cannot be classed as rational: Edwards v. Bairstow [1956] A.C. 14.

Lastly, good public administration requires decisiveness and finality, unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary.

It is, to my mind, self-evident that concurrent investigations in the UK and in Europe would be both oppressive and mutually destructive. I accept, therefore, that the duty of sincere cooperation does go beyond avoiding inconsistent decisions and extends to overlapping jurisdictions.

Counsel for OFT and Aer Lingus also rely on the provisions of the Enterprise Act to which I have referred. They point out that they lay down a strict timetable from initial reference to final conclusion without any power comparable to that of a court to stay proceedings at any stage if it thinks fit. There is no point short of a decision by the Competition Commission at which the process could be halted in the manner suggested by Ryanair.

Thus, at one end of the spectrum, a "low intensity" of review is applied to cases involving issues "depending essentially on political judgment" (de Smith para 13–056–7) . At the other end of the spectrum are decisions infringing fundamental rights where unreasonableness is not equated with "absurdity" or "perversity", and a "lower" threshold of unreasonableness is used:

I mention this matter because the court has an interest of its own in knowing what exactly it is expected to do on an application of the present kind. If it is asked to carry out a careful, thorough scrutiny of the benefits and dis-benefits of the proposal that will require the parties to put in extensive material to satisfy the court of those matters. It will involve the judge doing extensive pre-reading, particularly in a case where he is likely to hear from one side only.