Supply of construction services
The CMA is investigating suspected anti-competitive arrangements in the supply of construction services in the United Kingdom which may infringe Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998.
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’s appeal. In disposing of the appeal, the Tribunal has increased the penalty payable by Keltbray from £16 million to £18 million.
15 March 2024: Squibb’s Appeal is withdrawn pursuant to an Order from the Competition Appeal Tribunal.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’s 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 £16 million to £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’s judgment confirms that companies will be held to their agreements – companies which settle cannot take the CMA to court and expect to retain their discounts.
Today’s 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 £60 million have been imposed on:
- Brown and Mason Group Ltd (‘Brown and Mason’)
- Cantillon Ltd, Cantillon Holdings Ltd (together ‘Cantillon’)
- Clifford Devlin Ltd (‘Clifford Devlin’)
- DSM Demolition Ltd, DSM SFG Group Holdings Ltd, Nobel Midco Ltd, Nobel Topco Ltd (together ‘DSM’)
- Erith Contractors Ltd, Erith Holdings Ltd (together ‘Erith’)
- John F Hunt Ltd, John F Hunt Group Ltd (together ‘John F Hunt’)
- Keltbray Ltd, Keltbray Holdings Ltd (together ‘Keltbray’)
- McGee Group (Holdings) Ltd, MFCOIL Ltd (together ‘McGee’)
- T. E. Scudder Ltd, P.J. Carey Plant Hire (Oval) Ltd, Carey Group Ltd (together ‘Scudder’)
- 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’s and Scudder’s penalties also include a discount under the CMA’s 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 (‘Brown and Mason’)); Cantillon Limited (‘Cantillon’), and its parent company, Cantillon Holdings Limited; Clifford Devlin Limited (‘Clifford Devlin); DSM Demolition Limited (‘DSM’) and its parent companies, DSM SFG Group Holdings Limited Nobel Midco Limited and Nobel Topco Limited; Erith Contractors Limited (‘Erith’) and its parent company Erith Holdings Limited; John F Hunt Limited (‘John F Hunt’) and its parent company John F Hunt Group Limited; Keltbray Limited (‘Keltbray’) and Keltbray Holdings Limited (as economic successor to Keltbray’s parent company Keltbray Group (Holdings) Limited); McGee Group (Holdings) Limited (‘McGee’) and its parent company MFCOIL Limited; T. E. Scudder Limited (‘Scudder’), P.J. Carey Plant Hire (Oval) Limited and Scudder’s parent company, Carey Group Limited; and Squibb Group Limited (‘Squibb’)
Eight of the firms – Brown and Mason; Cantillon; Clifford Devlin; DSM; John F Hunt; Keltbray; McGee and Scudder – have admitted their participation in the alleged bid rigging and agreed to pay fines under the CMA’s 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’ admissions and their cooperation with the CMA’s investigation. The final level of any fines will be decided by a new case decision group, in accordance with the CMA’s administrative process.
Scudder and McGee also reported their involvement in the conduct under the CMA’s 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’s leniency policy.
The CMA’s 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’s 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.
You can find more information about how the CMA handles personal information in the CMA’s Personal Information Charter.
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]
Updates to this page
Published 21 March 2019Last updated 20 December 2024 + show all updates
-
Appeals to the Competition Appeal Tribunal published
-
Non-confidential infringement decision published.
-
Competition disqualification undertaking from a further director announced
-
Director disqualification undertakings and Infringement decision published
-
Administration timetable updated.
-
Case timetable update published.
-
Update to administration timetable published.
-
Statement of Objections and settlement published.
-
Case timetable updated.
-
Additions to the case timetable and change log published.
-
Case timetable updated.
-
Case timetable updated.
-
Case timetable and change log updated.
-
Decision taken to proceed with investigation.
-
First published.