Competition and Markets Authority v Apple Inc & Ors
[2023] EWCA Civ 1445
Allergan PLC & Ors v The Competition and Markets Authority
6 September 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 1023
Court of Appeal
A group of companies were accused of breaking competition rules by making deals to avoid competing. A lower court initially agreed, but later changed its mind saying the accuser (CMA) didn't make its case properly. The appeals court decided that the CMA's case *was* proper, the lower court messed up its process, and the companies did indeed break the rules.
Key Facts
- •The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) found Allergan plc and other companies infringed Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 by entering into agreements that prevented competition in the hydrocortisone tablet market.
- •The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) initially found infringements but later overturned its decision, citing the CMA's failure to fully put its case to witnesses, particularly John Beighton.
- •The CMA appealed the CAT's decision, arguing its case was clear and properly presented.
- •The Court of Appeal considered the CMA's appeal, the companies' applications to appeal the CAT's initial findings, and the CMA's application to appeal parts of the CAT's first decision.
Legal Principles
Chapter I prohibition on agreements that prevent, restrict, or distort competition.
Competition Act 1998, Section 2
Tacit acceptance can constitute an anti-competitive agreement.
BAI and EU Commission v. Bayer AG (CJEU)
Dishonesty is not a requirement for an infringement of the Chapter I prohibition; it's a question of strict liability.
Competition Act 1998, Section 36(3); H2 and H3
Appeals from CMA infringement decisions should generally be determined on the evidence before the CMA, not through expanded evidentiary hearings.
CAT’s “Guide to Proceedings” 2015; Case law cited therein
Outcomes
CMA's appeal against H3 allowed.
The CAT's procedure was inappropriate; it should have decided the appeals on the merits of the evidence presented, not through a second hearing that broadened the scope of the inquiry.
CMA granted permission to appeal parts of H2, and appeal allowed.
The CAT wrongly concluded a further hearing was needed; the evidence supported dismissing the companies' appeals, except for aspects concerning dishonesty which were not part of the CMA's case.
Companies' applications for permission to appeal H2 dismissed.
None of the companies' arguments raised arguable points of law or had a real prospect of success; the CMA's case was fairly put to the witnesses.
Companies' appeals from the CMA's Decision finally dismissed.
The Court of Appeal concluded the CMA’s case was properly presented and the Tribunal erred in its procedure.