The applicant sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Competition Commission Appeals Tribunal.
Held: Since the decision of the tribunal did not involve questions of law, it fell exactly within the Cooke case, and the court should be reluctant to review a tribunal practicing as expert in an area for which it had been given statutory responsibility, and in which the judges would have no experience. An application for leave should identify which law had been infringed, and where it could be found in European law, and the exact nature of the error alleged. The application should also comply with the Civil Procedure Rules and the Practice Direction.
Judges:
Lord Justice Brooke and Lord Justice Buxton
Citations:
Times 26-Jun-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 796
Links:
Statutes:
Civil Procedure Rules 52.4, Competition Act 1998 18
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Practice Direction on the Citation of Authorities LCJ 9-Apr-2001
The court laid down rules for restricting the citation of authorities, which rules are to be applied in all courts except criminal courts. The increase in the number of judgments series being available had come to be problematic for all involved, . .
Cited – Cooke v Secretary of State for Social Security CA 25-Apr-2001
Although production of a new medical report, or of a new medical opinion, could evidence a relevant change of circumstances, to support the claim that the threshold had been reached so as to allow a review of a decision to grant benefits, it did not . .
See Also – Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited and Subsidiaries v Director General of Fair Trading CAT 22-May-2001
Judgment on request for interim relief.
In principle, prices are excessive if they ‘are higher than would be expected in a competitive market’ and ‘there is no effective competitive pressure to bring them down to competitive levels, nor is . .
See Also – NAPP Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited and Subsidiaries v Director General of Fair Trading CAT 10-Jul-2001
Judgment on application to extend time for service of defence. . .
See Also – NAPP Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited and Subsidiaries v Director General of Fair Trading CAT 8-Aug-2001
Judgment on application to disallow parts of the defence. . .
See Also – Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited and Subsidiaries v Director General of Fair Trading CAT 16-Jan-2002
. .
See Also – NAPP Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited and Subsidiaries v Director General of Fair Trading CAT 6-Feb-2002
Judgment on interest and costs. . .
See Also – Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited and Subsidiaries v Director General of Fair Trading CAT 26-Mar-2002
Judgment regarding reasons for refusing permission to appeal – dismissed with costs. . .
Cited by:
Cited – HM Revenue and Customs v Weight Watchers (UK) Ltd ChD 21-Jan-2008
The court was asked whether the weight-watchers program which included attendance at a course and a supply of supporting materials was one single standard-rated supply or separate supplies of zero-rated printed materials and standard-rated support . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commercial, Civil Procedure Rules
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.217202