BCLP logo

Ben Bolderson

Ben Bolderson

Associate

London

T: +44 (0) 20 3400 2123

VcardVcard
Download PDFDownload PDF
Print
Share

Biography

Ben has significant experience in complex competition litigation, including collective actions in the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Ben has advised clients on a wide range of disputes and investigations in various forums in the UK and abroad, including the High Court, the Competition Appeal Tribunal, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. In 2025, Ben was recognised as one of Lawdragon's 500 Next Generation Lawyers globally and in 2024, Ben was shortlisted for the Modern Law Awards “Rising Star of the Year” award. He is the youngest lawyer ever to be listed as a “Key Lawyer” for competition litigation in Legal 500, where he is also recognised as Key Lawyer for Competition/EU Law. Ben regularly provides seminars and training on all aspects of competition litigation and collective actions.

Andrew Hockley and Ben Bolderson are absolutely outstanding lawyers. Commercial, pragmatic and so easy to work with. They’re just an extension of the in house legal team.

Legal 500, 2025

The Growth of Class Actions: What’s next?

Admissions

  • England and Wales

Related Capabilities

Antitrust & Competition Antitrust & Competition

Investigations Investigations

Litigation & Dispute Resolution Litigation & Dispute Resolution

Regulation, Compliance & Advisory Regulation, Compliance & Advisory

  • Antitrust & Competition

  • Investigations

  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution

  • Regulation, Compliance & Advisory

Related Insights

Insights
Aug 07, 2023

PACCAR: a new direction for the funding of class actions?

The Supreme Court’s decision in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) (Appellants) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others (Respondents) [2023] UKSC 28 has caused a stir in the legal industry, leaving a number of question marks over the future direction of litigation funding. In this insight, we consider how the Supreme Court’s ruling might specifically impact class actions in both the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) and the High Court.
Insights
Jul 18, 2023

Formalism on the Chopping Bock – the ECJ’s judgment in Super Bock

The ECJ’s recent preliminary ruling in C-211/22 - Super Bock Bebidas (“Super Bock”) is significant for businesses and competition authorities. It is well-established that categorisation of conduct as a ‘by object’ infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU must be considered by reference to whether, on a case-by-case basis, the agreement presents a sufficient degree of harm to competition. Super Bock is the first occasion on which the ECJ has applied this principle to vertical agreements fixing minimum resale prices (aka resale price maintenance, or “RPM”). In applying established principles to the vertical RPM setting, the ECJ’s analysis in Super Bock is unsurprising. However, it does formally reverse the Court’s earlier judgment in C-243/83 - SA Binon, and in doing so continues the ECJ’s retreat from assessing ‘by object’ infringements as according to their form, rather than their substance, under Article 101 TFEU. In this article we assess the impact of Super Bock, with analysis of its impact for businesses and competition authorities.  

Related Insights

News
Mar 05, 2024
BCLP article nominated for 2024 antitrust writing awards
Insights
Aug 07, 2023
PACCAR: a new direction for the funding of class actions?
The Supreme Court’s decision in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) (Appellants) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others (Respondents) [2023] UKSC 28 has caused a stir in the legal industry, leaving a number of question marks over the future direction of litigation funding. In this insight, we consider how the Supreme Court’s ruling might specifically impact class actions in both the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) and the High Court.
Insights
Jul 18, 2023
Formalism on the Chopping Bock – the ECJ’s judgment in Super Bock
The ECJ’s recent preliminary ruling in C-211/22 - Super Bock Bebidas (“Super Bock”) is significant for businesses and competition authorities. It is well-established that categorisation of conduct as a ‘by object’ infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU must be considered by reference to whether, on a case-by-case basis, the agreement presents a sufficient degree of harm to competition. Super Bock is the first occasion on which the ECJ has applied this principle to vertical agreements fixing minimum resale prices (aka resale price maintenance, or “RPM”). In applying established principles to the vertical RPM setting, the ECJ’s analysis in Super Bock is unsurprising. However, it does formally reverse the Court’s earlier judgment in C-243/83 - SA Binon, and in doing so continues the ECJ’s retreat from assessing ‘by object’ infringements as according to their form, rather than their substance, under Article 101 TFEU. In this article we assess the impact of Super Bock, with analysis of its impact for businesses and competition authorities.  
Insights
Jun 16, 2023
Counting the costs of certification: the allocation of costs in collective proceedings
News
Jun 16, 2023
Lawyers co-author article in ‘Global Competition Litigation Review’ on collective proceedings regime
Insights
Mar 28, 2023
Doing a deal as an abuse of dominance? The ECJ’s decision in Towercast