Fairness In Journalism And A Third Judgment
March 04, 04Last week I discussed many specific details of BHP Billiton’s legal victory in Antwerp’s Commercial Court. It involved two separate cases in which two ex-clients of the rough producer sued in order to get their regular allocation from the Ekati mine reinstated. The court ruled that the producers ‘refusal to supply’ is fully consistent with the principles of free trade in a competitive environment and dismissed the complaints.
There was, however, a third judgment. There has been massive publicity (also in this column) about a very serious high profile complaint filed with the European Commission and, thereafter, also with the Commercial Court, by an ex-DTC sightholder against De Beers. The EC is investigating the complaint – as it must do – and it will probably take some time for that case to evolve. We don’t want to conjecture where this investigation is heading – though we know that it is ongoing.
However, the relevant DTC ex-sightholder did get a judgment in the case in the Commercial Court. He lost. This is extremely interesting as previously another rough dealer secured a judgment in the very same court that ordered the extension of his sight privileges for at least 9 months. This was, at the time, widely reported as representing a significant precedent. Indeed, the court was seen as sympathetic towards the Antwerp diamond industry, especially as the presiding judge in this rather controversial judgment implied that the legal merits brought up by the plaintiff in the anti De Beers case were not very compelling. At the time, the court specifically respected the EC’s decision to allow the implementation of Supplier of Choice and the court relied on the EC’s exhaustive investigation on the competition and anti-trust merits.
The very same court – although a different judge was presiding – dismissed the other case against De Beers. So the precedent turns out not to have been significant after all. What puzzles me is that while the other case has drawn so much attention in both the trade and the general press, the judgment handed down by the Antwerp Commercial Court seems to have been completely ignored and unreported.
Admittedly, sometimes there are compelling personal circumstance dictating considerable journalistic constraints and respect, and I think that may well be applicable in this instance. Therefore we don’t want to dwell on the specific details of the judgment, which somehow seems all less relevant today. However, in any court case, there is a plaintiff and defendant and the commercial integrity, reputation and standing of both parties involved in the legal proceedings are at stake. If both sides were ok, no case would have been brought. This makes it imperative to note at least the outcome of the case even without knowing if there will be an appeal. I just did.