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.
[2002] CAT 5
CAT
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. . .
See AlsoNapp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited and Subsidiaries v Director General of Fair Trading CAT 16-Jan-2002
. .
See AlsoNAPP Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited and Subsidiaries v Director General of Fair Trading CAT 6-Feb-2002
Judgment on interest and costs. . .

Cited by:
CitedChester City Council and Another v Arriva Plc and others ChD 15-Jun-2007
The claimant council alleged that the defendant had acted to abuse its dominant market position in the provision of bus services in the city.
Held: It was for the claimant to show that the defendant had a dominant position. It had not done so, . .
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 March 2021; Ref: scu.227111