188体育

Case timetable

Date	Action
12 June 2023	Publication of non-confidential version of the infringement decision
23 March 2023	Infringement decision issued
February 2023	Ongoing consideration of representations (next update March 2023)
January 2023	Ongoing consideration of representations (next update February 2023)
November 2022	Ongoing consideration of representations (next update January 2023)
June to November 2022	Receipt and consideration of representations on the statement of objections
24 June 2022	Issue of Statement of Objections and settlement announced
March 2022	Investigation continuing (next update July 2022)
December 2021	Investigation continuing (next update March 2022)
February 2021	Decision taken to continue with the investigation (next update October 2021)
December 2020	Further investigatory steps and assessment of evidence (next update February 2021)
June 2020	Further investigatory steps and assessment of evidence (next update December 2020)
October 2019	Decision taken to proceed with investigation (further update June 2020)
March 2019 to September 2019	Initial investigation: information gathering

Appeals to the Competition Appeal Tribunal

20 December 2024: The Competition Appeal Tribunal has handed down its judgment in respect of Keltbray鈥檚 appeal. In disposing of the appeal, the Tribunal has increased the penalty payable by Keltbray from 拢16 million to 拢18 million.

15 March 2024: Squibb鈥檚 Appeal is withdrawn pursuant to an Order from the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

23 May 2024: Keltbray and Squibb appealed to the Competition Appeal Tribunal in respect of the CMA鈥檚 Decision.

Juliette Enser, Executive Director of Competition Enforcement at the Competition and Markets Authority, said:

We are pleased that the Competition Appeal Tribunal has increased the penalty Keltbray has to pay from 拢16 million to 拢18 million for their part in illegal bid-rigging in the form of cover bidding. This judgment confirms that serious breaches of competition law, including for cover bidding, will result in significant penalties.

The CAT agreed that, having appealed, Keltbray should lose the discount it received for settling. The CAT鈥檚 judgment confirms that companies will be held to their agreements 鈥� companies which settle cannot take the CMA to court and expect to retain their discounts.

Today鈥檚 decision should act as a reminder that the CMA will not tolerate unlawful conduct which harms competition and can keep prices up at the expense of businesses and taxpayers.

Change log

The following changes have been made to the case timetable since it was first published in March 2019:

Date of change	Reason for change	Change made to timetable
21 December 2021	Additional time needed to undertake steps	Date of further update changed from October 2021 to December 2021
1 June 2020	Additional time needed to gather and analyse additional information	Date of further update changed from April 2020 to June 2020

Non-confidential infringement decision

12 June 2023: The CMA has published a non-confidential version of the decision in this case.

• (12.6.23)

Director disqualification undertakings

25 May 2023: The CMA has secured the disqualification of a further director involved in the unlawful conduct. Nicholas Brown (current director of Brown and Mason) has been disqualified for a period of 7 years.

23 March 2023: The CMA has secured the disqualification of 3 directors of companies involved in the unlawful conduct. These are Mr David Darsey (formerly a director of Erith) for a period of 5 years and 10 months from 2 February 2023, Mr Michael Cantillon (formerly a director of Cantillon) for 7 years and 6 months and Paul Cluskey (current director of Cantillon) for 4 years and 6 months.

Find out more on the Supply of construction services director disqualification case page.

Infringement decision

23 March 2023: The CMA has issued a decision finding 10 suppliers of demolition and asbestos services breached competition law by taking part in bid rigging, in the form of cover bidding.

Fines totalling almost 拢60 million have been imposed on:

• Brown and Mason Group Ltd (鈥楤rown and Mason鈥�)
• Cantillon Ltd, Cantillon Holdings Ltd (together 鈥楥antillon鈥�)
• Clifford Devlin Ltd (鈥楥lifford Devlin鈥�)
• DSM Demolition Ltd, DSM SFG Group Holdings Ltd, Nobel Midco Ltd, Nobel Topco Ltd (together 鈥楧SM鈥�)
• Erith Contractors Ltd, Erith Holdings Ltd (together 鈥楨rith鈥�)
• John F Hunt Ltd, John F Hunt Group Ltd (together 鈥楯ohn F Hunt鈥�)
• Keltbray Ltd, Keltbray Holdings Ltd (together 鈥楰eltbray鈥�)
• McGee Group (Holdings) Ltd, MFCOIL Ltd (together 鈥楳cGee鈥�)
• T. E. Scudder Ltd, P.J. Carey Plant Hire (Oval) Ltd, Carey Group Ltd (together 鈥楽cudder鈥�)
• Squibb Group Ltd

Brown and Mason, Cantillon, Clifford Devlin, DSM, John F Hunt, Keltbray, McGee and Scudder were handed reduced fines as settling parties who had admitted their involvement in the cartel activity. McGee鈥檚 and Scudder鈥檚 penalties also include a discount under the CMA鈥檚 Leniency programme.

• Press release: Construction firms fined nearly 60 million for breaking competition law by bid rigging (23.3.23)

Statement of Objections and settlement

24 June 2022: On 23 June 2022, the CMA issued a statement of objections provisionally finding that 10 suppliers of demolition and removal of asbestos services breached competition law by taking part in bid rigging, in the form of cover bidding. The statement is addressed to Brown and Mason Group Limited (as economic successor to the company directly involved in the infringement, Brown and Mason Limited (鈥楤rown and Mason鈥�)); Cantillon Limited (鈥楥antillon鈥�), and its parent company, Cantillon Holdings Limited; Clifford Devlin Limited (鈥楥lifford Devlin); DSM Demolition Limited (鈥楧SM鈥�) and its parent companies, DSM SFG Group Holdings Limited Nobel Midco Limited and Nobel Topco Limited; Erith Contractors Limited (鈥楨rith鈥�) and its parent company Erith Holdings Limited; John F Hunt Limited (鈥楯ohn F Hunt鈥�) and its parent company John F Hunt Group Limited; Keltbray Limited (鈥楰eltbray鈥�) and Keltbray Holdings Limited (as economic successor to Keltbray鈥檚 parent company Keltbray Group (Holdings) Limited); McGee Group (Holdings) Limited (鈥楳cGee鈥�) and its parent company MFCOIL Limited; T. E. Scudder Limited (鈥楽cudder鈥�), P.J. Carey Plant Hire (Oval) Limited and Scudder鈥檚 parent company, Carey Group Limited; and Squibb Group Limited (鈥楽quibb鈥�)

Eight of the firms 鈥� Brown and Mason; Cantillon; Clifford Devlin; DSM; John F Hunt; Keltbray; McGee and Scudder 鈥� have admitted their participation in the alleged bid rigging and agreed to pay fines under the CMA鈥檚 settlement policy. Provided they comply with the terms of the settlement, any fines of the settling firms will be discounted to reflect the resource savings to the CMA generated by the firms鈥� admissions and their cooperation with the CMA鈥檚 investigation. The final level of any fines will be decided by a new case decision group, in accordance with the CMA鈥檚 administrative process.

Scudder and McGee also reported their involvement in the conduct under the CMA鈥檚 leniency policy and will also benefit from a leniency discount on any fines, provided they continue to co-operate and comply with the other conditions of the CMA鈥檚 leniency policy.

The CMA鈥檚 investigation into 2 further companies, Erith Contractors Limited and Squibb Group Limited continues and no assumption should be made that they have infringed the law.

• Press release: CMA provisionally finds illegal cartels in construction industry (24.6.22)

Case information

The investigation concerns suspected infringements of Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 (CA98).

This case is at an early stage and no assumption should be made that the CA98 has been infringed. The CMA has not reached a view as to whether there is sufficient evidence of an infringement of competition law for it to issue a statement of objections to any of the parties under investigation. Not all cases result in the CMA issuing a statement of objections.

If the CMA issues a statement of objections, it will provide the addressees of that statement of objections with an opportunity to make written and oral representations. Find more information in the CMA鈥檚 Procedures in Competition Act cases.

Personal data

The CMA may collect, use and share personal data for its investigations, including investigations under the Competition Act 1998. This includes processing personal data for the purposes of the General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018.

Contacts

Investigation Team Leader

Padraig Sheerin, [email protected]

Assistant Project Directors

Richard Brown, [email protected]

Laila Benfaida, [email protected]

Project Directors

Emma Lindsay, [email protected]

Sean McNabb , [email protected]

Senior Responsible Officer

Juliette Enser [email protected]

Media enquiries

020 3738 6460, [email protected]