UK: Potential EU-UK Competition Law Divergence Post- Brexit Highlighted By Conflicting Approaches Of UK Competition Appeal Tribunal In Recent Pharma Cases

Last Updated: 20 August 2018
Article by Ian McDonald, Catherina Yurchyshyn and Warsha Kalé

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (the "CAT") has recently issued two judgments relating to anti-competitive practices in the pharmaceutical sector, namely: (1) 'pay for delay' agreements in GlaxoSmithKline PLC v Competition and Markets Authority [2018] CAT 4 (the "Paroxetine Case"); and (2) excessive pricing in Pfizer Inc. and Pfizer Limited v Competition and Markets Authority [2018] CAT 11 (the "Phenytoin Case").

The Paroxetine Case represents the first time that the CAT has made a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") under Article 267 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ("TFEU"). Article 267 TFEU provides that national courts and tribunals may make a preliminary reference to the CJEU concerning the interpretation of EU law, where such interpretation is unclear. This should be read in conjunction with the duty on the CAT under s60 Competition Act 1998 ("CA98") to ensure that, broadly speaking, UK competition law is applied consistently with EU competition law.

In light of the above, it is striking that the preliminary reference procedure was not used in the later Phenytoin Case even though the latter represents a significant development in – and, arguably, a divergence from – well-established principles of EU law in respect of excessive pricing abuses.

Whilst the judgments form part of a significant surge in activity by the UK Competition and Markets Authority (the "CMA") in the pharma sector, they also offer perhaps a final opportunity (from a competition law perspective) to consider the preliminary reference procedure prior to the UK's projected withdrawal from the EU in 2019. More broadly, the Phenytoin Case, in particular, may be seen as shedding some light on how UK and EU competition law might interact in a post-Brexit world.


The Paroxetine Case was an appeal against a decision of the CMA on 12 February 2016 holding that GlaxoSmithKline plc ("GSK"), a supplier of branded paroxetine (an anti-depressant medicine), agreed to make payments and value transfers to certain of its competitors which were aimed at deferring the potential entry of so-called 'generic' competitors into the UK market. Such agreements are commonly termed 'pay for delay' agreements. The CMA imposed a fine on GSK of £37.6 million for entering into an anti-competitive agreement; the generic competitors were also fined approximately £7.4 million.

The Phenytoin Case was an appeal against a decision of the CMA issued on 7 December 2016 holding that Pfizer Inc. and Pfizer Limited (together, "Pfizer") and its distributor in the UK, Flynn Pharma Limited ("Flynn"), had charged excessive and unfair prices in the UK for phenytoin sodium capsules (an anti-epilepsy drug), following the drug's de-branding and removal from price regulation. The CMA imposed what were record fines of £84.2 million on Pfizer and £5.2 million on Flynn, for abuse of their respective dominant positions.

The preliminary reference procedure and the Paroxetine Case

Article 267 TFEU provides that national courts and tribunals may make a preliminary reference to the CJEU concerning the interpretation of EU law, where such interpretation is not clear. In such cases where a matter is before a national court/tribunal against which there is no appeal, that body is under a duty to refer such matters to the CJEU. The CAT is not a tribunal from which there is no judicial remedy and, as such, the CAT is not under an obligation to make a preliminary reference.

In the Paroxetine Case, the relevant conduct was considered by the CMA as primarily an infringement of UK competition law. The CAT however acknowledged that decisional practice of the European Commission (the "Commission") and the jurisprudence of the EU courts were of "direct relevance" to the application of the domestic provisions, as well as highlighting the fact that the CAT is subject to a clear legislative obligation under s60 CA98, broadly, to ensure that UK competition law is applied consistently with EU competition law. Accordingly, particularly in light of pending appeals on similar 'pay for delay' issues before the CJEU,1 the CAT considered it appropriate to make a preliminary reference to the CJEU on interpretation of the relevant issues under EU law (notwithstanding its detailed consideration of these issues in its judgment).

Excessive pricing and the Phenytoin Case

In sharp contrast to the Paroxetine Case, the CAT in the Phenytoin Case refrained from making a preliminary reference in circumstances where it both critiqued and developed well-established CJEU jurisprudence concerning excessive pricing. For these purposes, it is useful to establish briefly the legal framework against which the CAT adopted its judgment.

Excessive pricing is a notoriously difficult infringement for competition authorities and the courts alike to grapple with, which perhaps explains why, until the recent surge of pharma cases, there has been a notable lack of proceedings for over a decade. However, it can clearly constitute an infringement of Article 102 TFEU following the CJEU's seminal judgment in United Brands.2 The CJEU held that: "charging a price which is excessive because it has no reasonable relation to the economic value of the product supplied would be an abuse."3

In United Brands, the CJEU framed the analysis of whether an undertaking has charged excessive prices primarily under the following two-limbed test:

  1. Whether the difference between the costs actually incurred and the price actually charged is excessive (the "excessiveness limb"); and (if so)
  2. Whether a price has been imposed which is either unfair in itself or when compared to competing products (the "unfairness limb").4

The United Brands test, though difficult in practice for competition authorities to satisfy, has been followed in subsequent EU and UK decisions.5 However, in the Phenytoin Case, the CAT significantly advanced – and, arguably, diverged from – the CJEU's judgment, maintaining that the United Brands test was "deceptively simple" and "not easily applicable".6

We do not propose to set out the CAT's refined test in its entirety here; however, the extension of the United Brands test may be summarised as follows:

  1. Development of the excessiveness limb:

    1. Competition authorities must establish a benchmark price or range to allow examination of suitable comparator products. The CAT was critical of the CMA's "almost total reliance" on the reasonable rate of return methodology – which led to a result that "owes more to a theoretical concept of idealised or near perfect competition, than to the real world (where normal, effective competition is the most that should be expected)";7 and
    2. The differential between the benchmark price (or range) and the price charged in practice must be "significant and persistent to be excessive". Such examination should utilise a "weighted" rather than binary approach to establish whether a comparator is helpful to the analysis, requiring a competition authority to assess relevant comparators and ascribe to them differing degrees of influence.
  1. Elevation of a distinct 'economic value limb' to general application in all cases:

    1. Following satisfaction of the excessiveness limb and the unfairness limb, the competition authority must further assess the economic value of the product itself (by reference to a qualitative assessment of benefits to consumers), and:
  1. whether the price charged in practice bears no reasonable relation to it; and
  2. whether the dominant undertaking is reaping trading benefits that it would not reap under conditions of normal and sufficiently effective competition.

In doing so the CAT recognised explicitly "the difficulties inherent in seeking to formulate a generally applicable framework or test" for excessive pricing.8 Moreover, the CAT acknowledged the CJEU's observations in United Brands (and cases since) that there may be other methods of assessing excessive pricing under Article 102 TFEU. It is therefore somewhat surprising that the CAT went on to prescribe its own test (summarised above) as a precedent of general application, rather than being of limited application to the immediate facts or even the broader pharma sector.9 The CAT's prescriptive approach would seem to undermine (at least implicitly) any latitude afforded to competition authorities by United Brands to establish alternative methods of assessing cases of excessive pricing.

It is perhaps for this reason that the Commission's Director-General of Competition, Johannes Laitenberger, has already expressed concern at the CAT's application of United Brands:

"Looking at the very restrictive criteria applied by the CAT and the high barriers to finding an infringement they entail, further discussion will be needed as to whether competition authorities would actually be able to continue ensuring the effective enforcement of competition law in this area if they were to base themselves on a test that appears to go beyond the requirements of current [CJEU] case-law."10 (emphasis added)

Whilst the CAT is not under an obligation to make a preliminary reference, as noted above, it is subject to a clear legislative duty under s60 CA98 to ensure consistency between UK and EU competition law. In such circumstances, the CAT's decision not to make a preliminary reference seems to be somewhat of a missed opportunity – not only with respect to its duty to ensure consistent interpretation, but also in light of the ongoing investigations in the pharma sector of both the CMA11 and the Commission (the latter is currently investigating Aspen in respect of excessive pricing12). In the CAT's own words:

"In a matter as important for government, for the public as patients and as taxpayers, as well as for the pharmaceutical industry itself, the law should be clear and any decisions made should be soundly based on proper evidence and analysis. It is important that there is a good legal foundation for any future action in this area."13 (emphasis added)

In our view, the Phenytoin Case represented a potential opportunity to promote convergence – rather than divergence – between the practice of the CMA and Commission (and indeed other EEA competition authorities) in respect of excessive pricing cases. The preliminary reference procedure offers a clear path for national judicial bodies to ensure a consistent interpretation of competition law across the EU.14 It now remains to be seen what approach the Commission will adopt in its excessive pricing investigation against Aspen, and how the CMA will reflect the CAT's approach in its remaining pharma investigations.

Better late than never? Brexit and potential divergence of UK-EU competition law

At the time of writing, the proposed Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and the EU (the "Draft Agreement") – and specifically the provisions regarding future judicial cooperation that do not concern citizen's rights – remains to be agreed.15 Provisionally, the so-called 'transition period' which is governed by the Draft Agreement will expire on 31 December 2020.

The CJEU's response to the CAT's first ever preliminary reference in the Paroxetine Case will almost certainly be handed down post-UK withdrawal. The Draft Agreement does, however, currently make provision for the continued jurisdiction of the CJEU to provide rulings where the matter commenced before withdrawal (Article 82(2)). If this text is retained in the Withdrawal Agreement, the CAT would presumably consider itself bound to apply the correct interpretation of EU law as provided by the CJEU in the preliminary reference even though such judgment would be handed down after the UK's withdrawal from the EU on 11pm, 29 March 2019 ("Exit Day").16

On the other hand, the Phenytoin Case presents an unusual dilemma: the CAT has remitted the CMA's decision to be retaken by the CMA in line with the CAT's revised excessive pricing test. However, at the time of writing, all parties in the case are reportedly seeking an appeal of the judgment directly to the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (the "CA") – having been refused leave to appeal by the CAT.

This presents a number of potential tensions regarding the future interaction of UK and EU competition law:

  1. If the Draft Agreement is not entered into before Exit Day, there will be no legal basis for the CJEU's jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on requests from UK courts and tribunals. The CJEU's response in the Paroxetine Case will, in such circumstances, be of no authoritative value to the CAT.
  2. It is unclear when the Phenytoin Case would be heard before the CA (if at all); however, any appeal would likely be heard following Exit Day, so the CA could not make a preliminary reference to the CJEU, based upon the current position under UK statute.17 This is in contrast with the position under the Draft Agreement, which provides for until the end of the transition period to make a preliminary reference.18
  3. It is also unclear at what stage the Government intends to amend s60 CA98, the timing of which would be determinative as to whether the CA (and, potentially, the UK Supreme Court) would be bound to review the Phenytoin Case consistently with EU competition law and practice

To what extent, therefore, can it be said that the UK and EU competition law regimes are already diverging? The CAT's potentially 'mixed messages' regarding its use of the preliminary reference procedure are revealing – though the acid test of whether the CAT adhered to s60 CA98 in the Phenytoin Case could yet be decided by the CA on appeal. The CAT's first preliminary reference to ensure consistent and correct interpretation of EU law in the Paroxetine Case will undoubtedly aid interpretation of a highly complex area of competition law for the pharma sector. However, in our view that has been overshadowed by the CAT's unilateral reshaping of the excessive pricing landscape in the Phenytoin Case.

The irony now apparent is that whilst we wrestle with the extent and impact of divergence in EU-UK competition law post-Brexit, the CAT may already have taken its first step towards autonomy pre-Brexit.


1 Appeals from Commission Decision of 9 July 2014 – AT.39612 – Servier and others – Perindopril (Servier) C(2014) 4955 final.

2 Judgment of 14 February 1978 in United Brands v Commission, C-27/76, EU:C:1978:22.

3 United Brands, paragraphs 248 and 250.

4 United Brands, paragraph 252.

5 See, e.g. Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited and Subsidiaries v Director General of Fair Trading [2002] CAT 1; Commission Decision 2001/892/EC of 25 July 2011 – COMP/36.915 – Deutsche Post AG – Interception of cross-border mail [2001] OJ L 331/40; Judgment of 11 December 2008, Kanal 5 Ltd v STIM upa, C-52/07, EU:C:2008:703; Judgment of 14 September 2017, AKKA/LAA, C-177/16, EU:C:2017:689.

6 Phenytoin Case, paragraph 289.

7 Phenytoin Case, paragraph 318.

8 Phenytoin Case, paragraph 442.

9 Phenytoin Case, paragraph 443.

10 Laitenberger, 'Competition assessments and abuse of dominance: Remarks on the two themes of the EUI Competition Workshop, Florence 22 June 2018' (22 June 2018)

11 E.g. the CMA's investigations into excessive pricing (and other infringements) against: (1) Actavis (March 2017); (2) Aspen (October 2017); (3) Concordia (November 2017).

12 Commission, Case 40394 Aspen (May 2017).

13 Phenytoin Case, paragraph 5.

14 A recent noteworthy example is the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court's preliminary reference in the Coty case, where the CJEU's judgment has drawn together diverging national practices with regard to online platform sales bans in selective distribution systems. Judgment of 6 December 2017, Coty Germany GMBH v Parfümerie Akzente GmbH, C-230/16, EU:C:2017:941.

15 Commission, 'Draft Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community' (19 March 2018)

16 s20(1) European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

17 s1 European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 repeals the European Communities Act 1972 on Exit Day. Further to s6(1)(b) European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, no matters can be referred to the European Court on or after Exit Day.

18 Draft Agreement, Article 83(2).

Visit us at

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2018. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions