Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited and Subsidiaries v Director General of Fair Trading: CAT 16 Jan 2002

Citations:

[2002] CAT 1, 1001/1/1/01

Links:

CAT, CAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoNapp 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 AlsoNAPP 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 AlsoNAPP Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited and Subsidiaries v Director General of Fair Trading CAT 8-Aug-2001
Judgment on application to disallow parts of the defence. . .

Cited by:

CitedAberdeen Journals Limited v Office of Fair Trading (No 2) CAT 2002
Sir Christopher Bellamy said: ‘. . the question whether a certain pricing practice by a dominant undertaking is to be regarded as abusive for the purposes of Chapter II is a matter to be looked at in the round, taking particularly into account (i) . .
CitedAttheraces Ltd and Another v British Horse Racing Board and Another ChD 21-Dec-2005
The claimants relayed horse racing events to bookmakers. The respondents collected data about the races and horses. The claimants sought the freedom to use that data, and the defendants asserted a database right to control such use.
Held: BHB . .
See AlsoNAPP Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited and Subsidiaries v Director General of Fair Trading CAT 6-Feb-2002
Judgment on interest and costs. . .
See AlsoNapp 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. . .
See AlsoNapp Pharmaceutical Holdings Ltd v Director General of Fair Trading CA 8-May-2002
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.227105