| Case ID |
3d5a9f6f-0556-4288-864e-ed655a23d920 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-2741 of 2016 |
| Decision Date |
May 16, 2018 |
| Hearing Date |
Mar 13, 2018 |
| Decision |
The Supreme Court ruled on the unequal treatment of parties under investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). It found that while the CMA owed a duty of fairness and equal treatment, the assurances mistakenly given to a third party retailer did not obligate the CMA to replicate the same assurances to other parties. The court determined that the unequal treatment was objectively justified based on the circumstances surrounding the case and the risks accepted by each party. The court emphasized that the CMA's mistake in providing assurances did not establish a legal entitlement for the claimants. The appeal was allowed, and the trial judge's dismissal of the claim was restored. |
| Summary |
This case examines the principles of fairness and equal treatment in competition law as applied by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). The case arose from an investigation into tobacco market practices where certain parties entered into Early Resolution Agreements (ERAs) with the CMA. The CMA mistakenly assured one party that it would benefit from any successful appeal by other parties, which led to claims of unequal treatment when other parties sought similar benefits. The Supreme Court held that while the CMA had a duty of fairness, the assurances given were not legally binding on the CMA to replicate for all parties involved. The court found that the CMA's decision to treat parties differently was objectively justified under the circumstances, reaffirming the need for clarity and legal certainty in competition law. This decision highlights the balance between regulatory discretion and the rights of parties under investigation, emphasizing that equal treatment is a guiding principle but not an absolute legal requirement. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of UK
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
LORD MANCE,
LORD SUMPTION,
LORD CARNWATH,
LORD HODGE,
LORD BRIGGS
|
| Lawyers |
Daniel Beard QC,
Andrew Henshaw QC,
Brendan McGurk (instructed by CMA Legal),
Lord Pannick QC,
Hanif Mussa (instructed by Slaughter and May),
Jessica Boyd (instructed by Burges Salmon LLP)
|
| Petitioners |
THE COM AND MARKETS AUTHORITY
|
| Respondents |
R (ON THE APPLICATION OF GALLAHER GROUP LTD.) AND OTHERS
|
| Citations |
2018 SLD 1637,
2018 SCMR 1342
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Not available
|
| Sections |
Not available
|