Companies that refuse to supply goods to competitors could face less risk of intervention for anti-competitive behaviour than those that do supply them, lawyers claimed this week in the wake of a ruling by the Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT).

The CAT upheld an Office of Fair Trading ruling against biotechnology company Genzyme for its supply of drugs for a rare medical condition called Gauchers to a competitor for a price that left it no margin to make a profit.

However, the CAT reduced Genzyme's fine from 6.8 million to 3 million.

Brian Sher, a competition specialist at US firm Latham & Watkins' City office, said: 'Companies refusing to supply goods would find that the law is more narrowly drawn because they could only be in breach if the supply is deemed essential to the competitor denied the goods.'

He said it was illogical that a company which refused to supply goods could avoid intervention, when if it supplied the goods it might not.

Peter Willis, a competition partner at City firm Taylor Wessing, agreed.

But he said: 'Although it might seem counter-intuitive, it is a reflection of the underlying economic principles.'

Edward Perrott, head of litigation at Cambridge-based Taylor Vinters, who is acting for Genzyme, said the company was considering an appeal.

Jeremy Fleming