34
| MAY 2023 | UTILITY WEEK
Energy
Analysis
F
ollowing months of debate over the
legality of the government's decision
to allow Octopus Energy to acquire the
customers of collapsed energy supplier Bulb,
the High Court finally brought closure to the
long-running issue in March when it threw
out a legal challenge by British Gas, Eon and
Scottish Power.
In the ruling, published several weeks
a‚er the three-day hearing, High Court Lord
Justice Singh and Mr Justice Foxton rejected
the suppliers' claim for a judicial review on
the grounds that they took too long to lodge
their claim.
The ruling added that even if the suppli-
ers had acted earlier, the case would have
still been rejected.
The challenge was made on the grounds
that Octopus was offered
different terms to other
suitors and that the
secretary of state could
have got a better deal.
British Gas
owner Centrica
said it was subject
to "discrimination" in
the bidding process, and in
documents submitted to the
court argued that the decision was
"arrived at by an unlawful and unfair
process".
The government hit back at these
claims, however, saying allegations made by
rival suppliers were all "without merit".
"The claimants ask the court to 'infer'
that Octopus was given information unavail-
able to others, but there is no proper basis
for such an inference," legal documents
submitted by the Department for Business,
Energy and Industrial Strategy – now DESNZ
– said.
Similarly, Octopus Energy strongly
rebutted its rivals' accusations, argu-
ing that it was not given any addi-
tional information about government
support prior to its acquisition of the
failed retailer.
In documents submitted to the
court, Octopus further argued: "In
the claimants' view, the secretary of
state could have secured a 'better'
deal if he had adopted a different
approach.
"That narrative involves a
rewriting of history: the evidence
shows that the claimants had
the opportunity to take part
in the M&A
process for
Bulb,
but
