The UK’s Competition Commission (CC) has launched an investigation into Dairy Crest’s sale of cheese maker Millway to local peer Long Clawson Dairy over concerns it could reduce competition in the supply of Stilton.


The GBP3.5m (US$6.1m) deal, which was agreed in July, was referred to the CC last month by the Office of Fair Trading.


Because the merger gives Long Clawson over 50% of UK Stilton sales, there is a concern that the deal would lessen competition in the market.


The CC said this afternoon (6 November) that an “enquiry group” would “consider the possible competitive effects of the merger within each of the relevant markets it identifies”.


If the merger is found to substantially weaken competition in the market, the CC will then determine what remedies might be appropriate, taking into account any customer benefits that might arise from the acquisition.

How well do you really know your competitors?

Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.

Company Profile – free sample

Thank you!

Your download email will arrive shortly

Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample

We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form

By GlobalData
Visit our Privacy Policy for more information about our services, how we may use, process and share your personal data, including information of your rights in respect of your personal data and how you can unsubscribe from future marketing communications. Our services are intended for corporate subscribers and you warrant that the email address submitted is your corporate email address.

A spokesperson for the competition watchdog told just-food that remedies could consist of a number of possibilities, including undoing the merger.


“Structural remedies, such as divestiture or prohibition, are likely to be preferable to behavioural remedies, which seek to regulate the behaviour of firms, as structural remedies address the effects of a merger more directly and will usually require less monitoring or enforcement of compliance,” the spokesperson said.


“However, behavioural remedies may be considered more suitable in some circumstances, for example where the significant lessening of competition is expected to be of limited duration or where the relevant customer benefits expected from a merger are substantial and behavioural remedies are likely to be more effective in preserving these than structural remedies.”