Competition and Markets Authority (Respondent) v Flynn Pharma Ltd and another (Appellants)
Case ID: 2020/0113
Case summary
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.
Judgment appealed
Parties
Appellant(s)
(1) Flynn Pharma Ltd, (2) Flynn Pharma (Holdings) Ltd
Respondent(s)
Competition and Markets Authority
Interveners
Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry &
British Generic Manufacturers Association
Office of Communications
Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd
Oakridge Farms Ltd
Appeal
Justices
Lord Hodge, Lord Sales, Lord Leggatt, Lord Stephens, Lady Rose
Hearing start date
22 February 2022
Hearing finish date
23 February 2022
| Watch hearing | ||
|---|---|---|
| 22 February 2022 | Morning session | Afternoon session |
| 23 February 2022 | Morning session | Afternoon session |
Judgment details
Judgment date
25 May 2022
Neutral citation
[2022] UKSC 14
- Judgment (PDF)
- Press summary (HTML version)
- Judgment on The National Archives (HTML version)
- Judgment on BAILII (HTML version)
| Watch Judgment summary | |
|---|---|
| 25 May 2022 | Judgment summary |