188体育

The Court of Appeal (CoA) has today ruled in favour of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)鈥檚 appeal of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT)鈥檚 decision to overturn its finding of a market sharing agreement on procedural grounds.

In July 2021, the CMA found that pharmaceutical firms Auden Mckenzie and Actavis UK had charged excessive and unfair prices for hydrocortisone tablets. It also found that to protect its position as sole supplier of the drug, Auden/Actavis UK paid another pharmaceutical firm called AMCo (now called Advanz) to stay out of the market.

Tens of thousands of people in the UK depend on hydrocortisone tablets to treat life-threatening conditions such as Addison鈥檚 disease. The inflated prices Auden/Actavis UK charged, and sustained through buying off its competitors, resulted in NHS spending rising from around 拢500,000 a year to over 拢80 million. The CMA imposed over 拢260 million in penalties to reflect the seriousness of this conduct and its impact on the NHS.

Despite upholding the CMA鈥檚 findings of excessive and unfair pricing and the existence of a 鈥渇lagrantly anti-competitive鈥� market sharing agreement in September 2023, the CAT issued a further judgment in March 2024 which found that the CMA had failed to observe due process by not fully putting its case on the market sharing agreement to former CEO of Advanz John Beighton in cross-examination at trial.

Following an appeal by the CMA, the CoA has today overturned that judgment and endorsed the cross-examination by CMA counsel as demonstrating 鈥減recisely how a case of anti-competitive conduct can and should be put to a recalcitrant witness鈥�.

The CoA further decided that the procedure adopted by the CAT, in making findings and then engaging in 鈥渁n entirely fresh examination and analysis of the CMA鈥檚 case鈥� leading it to reverse those findings, was 鈥渋nappropriate鈥� and 鈥渦njust鈥�.

Sarah Cardell, Chief Executive of the CMA, said:

The CMA imposed significant penalties on these firms after finding that they engaged in a market sharing agreement that denied the NHS the potential savings from firms competing for this essential medicine.

When the CAT decided the CMA鈥檚 decision should be set aside despite being correct on the merits, we remained determined to see the case through and took the fastest route to correct this.

We鈥檙e delighted that the Court of Appeal recognised that the CMA鈥檚 case was consistent, clear and fairly defended on appeal.

Background on the case

• The case follows a聽CMA investigation into the conduct of several pharmaceutical firms: Auden Mckenzie and later Actavis UK (now known as Accord-UK); Waymade; and AMCo (now known as Advanz Pharma).

• In 2021,聽the CMA found that Auden/Actavis UK charged the NHS excessively high prices for hydrocortisone tablets from 2008 until 2017聽(for the 20mg strength) and until 2018 (for the 10mg strength). The CMA鈥檚 findings that these prices were excessive and unfair were upheld in the CAT鈥檚 鈥楬ydro 1鈥櫬�judgment of September 2023. The fines were reduced from 拢155 million to around 拢130 million.
• In its decision, the CMA found that in order to maintain its monopoly position, Auden agreed to make substantial monthly payments to Waymade in exchange for Waymade agreeing not to enter the market independently with its own 20mg hydrocortisone tablets between 2011 and 2015. The findings on liability were not appealed. Auden appealed its penalty of 拢2.8 million. The penalty was upheld in the CAT鈥檚 April 2024 .
• The CMA also found that Auden/Actavis UK agreed to make substantial monthly payments to AMCo in exchange for AMCo agreeing not to enter the market independently with its own 10mg hydrocortisone tablets between 2012 and 2016. These findings were appealed.
• In its September 2023 鈥�, the CAT found that the CMA鈥檚 decision on the existence and anti-competitive nature of the 10mg agreement had been correct on the merits, but expressed doubt about whether the CMA had fairly put its case to Mr Beighton at trial.
• A further hearing was held in October 2023. In its March 2024 鈥�, the CAT found that the CMA had not fairly put its case at trial and therefore allowed the companies鈥� appeals in relation to the 10mg agreement.
• The CMA brought an expedited appeal to the CoA against the Hydro 3 judgment and against the CAT鈥檚 decision in the Hydro 2 judgment not to finally determine the companies鈥� appeals. The companies also sought permission to appeal the finding in the Hydro 2 judgment that the CMA鈥檚 decision was correct on the merits.

The judgment

The CoA has today decided that:

(i) the CMA鈥檚 appeal from the Hydro 3 judgment should be allowed

(ii) the CMA鈥檚 application for permission to appeal from the Hydro 2 judgment should be granted and its appeal should be allowed

(iii) the companies should not be granted permission to appeal from Hydro 2

(iv) the CAT鈥檚 provisional findings in Hydro 2 that the companies鈥� appeals from the CMA鈥檚 decision should be dismissed, should be finalised and reinstated

(v) the CAT鈥檚 additional findings in Hydro 2 going beyond the CMA鈥檚 decision as to dishonesty and other matters should be overturned.

Notes to editors:

1. For media queries, please contact the press office on聽[email protected]聽or on 020 3738 6460.

2. The companies鈥� appeals against the penalties imposed for the 10mg agreement were not determined by the CAT. They will be subject to a further CAT judgment.

3. Previous action taken by the CMA in relation to the pharma sector and the fines imposed:

   • 聽(2016): 拢45 million in fines for anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominance (reduced to 拢27.1 million on appeal).

   • 聽(2019): 拢2.3 million in fines and 拢8 million redress to the NHS for market sharing.

   • 聽(2020): 拢3.4 million in fines and 拢1 million redress to the NHS for illegal arrangements including market sharing and information exchange (upheld on appeal).

   • 聽(2022): 拢35 million in fines for an illegal arrangement that restricted competition in the supply of prescription tablets (overturned on appeal).

   • 聽(2022): 拢70 million in fines for excessive and unfair pricing. Judgment from the CAT in the appeals is awaited.

   • 聽(2021, upheld by the CAT in August 2023): 拢101 million in fines for excessive and unfair pricing (reduced to 拢84 million on appeal). The case is currently on appeal to the CoA.