nitpicker / Shutterstock.com
The UK Supreme Court ruling involving Pfizer and Flynn is important for any company considering an appeal against the regulator, say Sophie Lawrance and James Batsford of Bristows.
On May 25, 2022, the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) handed down its judgment ( UKSC 14) in the joint appeals of Pfizer and Flynn (the Appellants) against a costs ruling by the Court of Appeal (the COA Costs Ruling).
The Court of Appeal’s decision ( EWCA Civ 617) had meant that public bodies and regulators such as the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) would not typically be required to pay the costs of a party successfully appealing one of their infringement decisions.
However, the UKSC, with Lady Rose giving the lead judgment, allowed the appeal thereby confirming that the CMA is not as a matter of principle exempt from paying successful appellants’ costs. The judgment confirmed that the key criterion for assessing when a regulator may be protected from costs exposure is where requiring it to pay the successful party’s costs would give rise to a chilling effect on the regulator’s statutory activities.
To continue reading this article and to access our full archive, digital magazines and special reports you will need a subscription.
If you have already subscribed please login.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription we can add you into, please email Atif at firstname.lastname@example.org
If you have any technical issues please email tech support.
For access to the complete website and archive choose '12 MONTH SUBSCRIPTION'. For a free, two-week trial select ‘TWO WEEK FREE TRIAL’.
UK, Big pharma, patents, Patents, Regulators, competition, markets, authority, UK, Supreme, Court, Pfizer, Flynn