Aberdeen Journals has overturned a £1.328m Office of Fair Trading fine imposed for alleged abuse of its dominant market position.

But the door has been left open for a further OFT assessment of the case in relation to the local media market conditions in Aberdeen.

In a statement following an appeal tribunal ruling, parent group Northcliffe said that competition issues were of "fundamental importance" and it had taken comprehensive measures to ensure compliance with competition legislation throughout the group.

The company successfully challenged the original OFT ruling that it used its position to try to remove the Aberdeen & District Independent free sheet from the market through predatory pricing of advertising space in its own free Herald & Post, one of 50 regional titles it owns.

The Independent had complained that Herald & Post advertising space was priced "significantly below market value".

But Aberdeen Journals claimed at the appeal hearing that it did not hold a dominant market position for the supply of advertising space in paid-for and free papers in the area, and even if it had, the company had not engaged in predatory activity.

It told the December appeal hearing in Edinburgh that the way the OFT had defined the local market conditions in Aberdeen was flawed. That rendered subsequent evidence unusable so a decision was set aside at yesterday's appeal result hearing in London.

A Northcliffe spokesman said: "Aberdeen Journals welcomes today's judgment from the Competition Commission Appeal Tribunal, overruling the decision reached by the OFT, which found that Aberdeen Journals had engaged in predatory pricing during a four-week period in March 2000.

"Aberdeen Journals is disappointed that the tribunal has given the OFT the option to re-assess the case in relation to the definition of the local media market conditions in Aberdeen.

"However, as the Tribunal states, its judgment does not imply that Aberdeen Journals in fact holds a dominant position, and still less whether it has abused any dominant position."

The OFT has two months to decide if the case is to be brought again under different parameters.

The penalty imposed last July, of £1,328,040, was under the Competition Act 1998 and only the second fine under the new legislation.

Do you have a story about the regional press? Ring 0116 227 3122/3121, or
e-mail pastill@nep.co.uk