The Court of Appeal has overturned the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s (CAT) March quashing of record fines against a “cartel” of hydrocortisone manufacturers, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) announced last week (September 6).
The Court of Appeal found in favour of the CMA’s finding that manufacturers Auden Mckenzie and Actavis UK – now known as Accord-UK – as well as their parent companies and potential competitors had charged “excessive and unfair” prices for hydrocortisone tablets.
CMA chief executive Sarah Cardell said the competition watchdog had been “determined to see the case through”. She said the appeal court had agreed the CMA’s case was “consistent, clear and fairly defended on appeal”.
Read more: ‘Highly concerning’: Hydrocortisone manufacturers' £100m fine overturned
In September 2023, the CAT “unanimously upheld” the CMA’s 2021 findings against the manufacturers for “abuse of dominance” and set fines of “almost £130 million”.
But the CAT at the time had “expressed doubt” whether the CMA had “fairly put its case” to former CEO of Advanz, John Beighton.
After a further hearing in March, the CAT decided these procedural grounds were sufficient to overturn the CMA’s finding and fines against a group of pharmaceutical manufacturers who had charged “excessive and unfair prices for hydrocortisone tablets”.
Read more: Hydrocortisone manufacturers face record £130m fine as appeal rejected
At the time, the CMA said that the CAT’s decision to overturn the record fines was “fundamentally misconceived”.
But the Court of Appeal did not agree with the CAT, instead determining that the CMA’s treatment of Beighton was “precisely how a case of anti-competitive conduct can and should be put to a recalcitrant witness”.
Read more: Accord vows to appeal CMA case on 10,000% hydrocortisone price hiking
The appeal court determined that the procedure used by the CAT was “inappropriate” and “unjust”.
In total, the CMA imposed penalties of more than £260m “to reflect the seriousness of this conduct and its impact on the NHS”.
CMA in action
In August, C+D reported that a protracted prochlorperazine saga had ended after the CMA declined to appeal against the overturning of its fines against three companies by the CAT.
Although the CMA declined to take the case to the Court of Appeal, it told C+D that it stood by its “well-evidenced decision” which it said followed from a “thorough investigation” and said it was “disappointed” with the CAT’s judgment.
