上诉成功和损失费用裁决的神秘案例:竞争与市场管理局诉弗林制药有限公司

Q4 Social Sciences
Sophie Lawrance, Bristows Llp London Partner, A. Brookes, London Bristows Llp
{"title":"上诉成功和损失费用裁决的神秘案例:竞争与市场管理局诉弗林制药有限公司","authors":"Sophie Lawrance, Bristows Llp London Partner, A. Brookes, London Bristows Llp","doi":"10.4337/CLJ.2020.04.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In May 2020 the Court of Appeal gave judgment in Competition and Markets Authority v. Flynn Pharma and Pfizer, which adjusted the starting point for costs awards following successful appeals of Competition and Markets Authority decisions. Following this judgment, such awards by the Competition Appeal Tribunal must start from the position that no order as to costs should be made against the CMA, rather than the standard approach of ‘costs follow the event’ that had been the CAT's established practice. This article examines the rationale for the CAT's past practice, the basis for the Court of Appeal's judgment altering that approach, and considers the potential implications the judgment may have.","PeriodicalId":36415,"journal":{"name":"Competition Law Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The mysterious case of the successful appeal and the missing costs award: Competition and Markets Authority v. Flynn Pharma Limited\",\"authors\":\"Sophie Lawrance, Bristows Llp London Partner, A. Brookes, London Bristows Llp\",\"doi\":\"10.4337/CLJ.2020.04.02\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In May 2020 the Court of Appeal gave judgment in Competition and Markets Authority v. Flynn Pharma and Pfizer, which adjusted the starting point for costs awards following successful appeals of Competition and Markets Authority decisions. Following this judgment, such awards by the Competition Appeal Tribunal must start from the position that no order as to costs should be made against the CMA, rather than the standard approach of ‘costs follow the event’ that had been the CAT's established practice. This article examines the rationale for the CAT's past practice, the basis for the Court of Appeal's judgment altering that approach, and considers the potential implications the judgment may have.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36415,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Competition Law Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Competition Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4337/CLJ.2020.04.02\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Competition Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/CLJ.2020.04.02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2020年5月,上诉法院在竞争和市场管理局诉弗林制药和辉瑞案中作出判决,在竞争和市场管理局的决定上诉成功后,调整了成本奖励的起点。在这一判决之后,竞争上诉审裁处的此类裁决必须从不应对CMA下达费用命令的立场出发,而不是从CAT已确立的“费用随事件而定”的标准方法出发。本文探讨了禁止酷刑委员会过去做法的基本原理,上诉法院改变这一做法的判决依据,并考虑了该判决可能产生的潜在影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The mysterious case of the successful appeal and the missing costs award: Competition and Markets Authority v. Flynn Pharma Limited
In May 2020 the Court of Appeal gave judgment in Competition and Markets Authority v. Flynn Pharma and Pfizer, which adjusted the starting point for costs awards following successful appeals of Competition and Markets Authority decisions. Following this judgment, such awards by the Competition Appeal Tribunal must start from the position that no order as to costs should be made against the CMA, rather than the standard approach of ‘costs follow the event’ that had been the CAT's established practice. This article examines the rationale for the CAT's past practice, the basis for the Court of Appeal's judgment altering that approach, and considers the potential implications the judgment may have.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Competition Law Journal
Competition Law Journal Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信