Visit JCPCUKSC/2020/0113
•
COMMERCIAL
Competition and Markets Authority (Respondent) v Flynn Pharma Ltd and another (Appellants)
Case summary
Case ID
UKSC/2020/0113
Parties
Appellant(s)
Flynn Pharma Ltd
Flynn Pharma (Holdings) Ltd
Respondent(s)
Competition and Markets Authority
Intervener(s)
Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry & British Generic Manufacturers Association Office of CommunicationsSolicitors Regulation Authority LtdOakridge Farms Ltd
Issue
When considering what costs to award following an appeal before the Competition Appeal Tribunal from an infringement decision of the Competition and Markets Authority, is there a starting point and if so, what is it? In particular, was the Court of Appeal correct to decide that there is a starting point that no order for costs should be made against a regulator if it has been unsuccessful, except for a good reason, or is the starting point instead that an order for costs should be made against the regulator where it is unsuccessful?
Facts
This appeal concerns costs and arises out of an investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority (the CMA) into the pricing of an epilepsy drug. Following an investigation lasting over three years, the CMA found that Flynn and Pfizer had abused their dominant positions in the UK market under domestic and EU competition law by charging excessive prices. Flynn and Pfizer appealed the CMA’s decision to the Competition Appeal Tribunal which decided that although Flynn and Pfizer held dominant positions in the market, the CMA had made errors in deciding that they had abused their positions.The Competition Appeal Tribunal separately considered costs arising out of the appeal. Flynn and Pfizer both claimed their costs on the basis that they substantially won their respective appeals. The Competition Appeal Tribunal decided that Flynn and Pfizer were entitled to recover some of their costs from the CMA. The CMA appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and decided that the starting point or default position is that no order for costs should be made against a regulator who has brought or defended proceedings in the Competition Appeal Tribunal acting purely in its regulatory capacity. That starting point can be departed from for good reason but the mere fact that the regulator has been unsuccessful is not enough. Flynn and Pfizer now appeal to the Supreme Court.
Date of issue
5 June 2020
Judgment appealed
Judgment details
Judgment date
25 May 2022
Neutral citation
[2022] UKSC 14
Judgment links
Judgment summary
25 May 2022
Appeal
Justices
Hearing dates
Full hearing
Start date
22 February 2022
End date
23 February 2022
Watch hearings
22 February 2022 - Morning session
22 February 2022 - Afternoon session
23 February 2022 - Morning session
23 February 2022 - Afternoon session
All videos on this page are recorded and transmitted in line with the Court's terms of use. These can be found here.. Please Note: Every effort is being made to provide a satisfactory streaming service of the Supreme Court judgments and hearings. However, these services may be subject to technical issues or delay, in which case we will attempt to resolve them as soon as possible.
Change log
Last updated 16 April 2024