Le Patourel v BT Group PLC & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 1061 (01 August 2025)

Le Patourel v BT Group PLC & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 1061 (01 August 2025)

The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal, holding that the CAT's approach to expert evidence, cost allocation, and the drawing of adverse inferences was within its legitimate discretion and supported by adequate reasoning. The CAT was entitled to weigh the available evidence, including expert opinion, and to decline to draw adverse inferences against BT. No error of law or irrationality was demonstrated in the CAT's evaluative assessment or its handling of the evidence.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 1061
Parties
Class Representative/appellant: Justin Le Patourel; Defendant/respondent: BT Group PLC; Defendant/respondent: British Telecommunications PLC; Interested Party/respondent: Competition and Markets Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal (competition Law, Collective Action) / Permission to Appeal From Competition Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Abuse of Dominance, Excessive Pricing, Collective Actions, Expert Evidence, Burden of Proof, Adverse Inference, Cost Allocation, Compound Interest
Competition Law Civil Procedure Abuse of Dominance Excessive Pricing Collective Actions Expert Evidence Burden of Proof Adverse Inference +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Justin Le Patourel

Class Representative/appellant

BT Group PLC

Defendant/respondent

British Telecommunications PLC

Defendant/respondent

Competition and Markets Authority

Interested Party/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (competition Law, Collective Action) / Permission to Appeal From Competition Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CAT erred in its approach to expert evidence and the drawing of adverse inferences regarding BT's indirect costs for SFV services
  2. 2 Whether the CAT erred in attributing 40% of BT's common costs to SFV services and in its reliance on the SAC Combi test
  3. 3 Whether the CAT erred in its evaluation of justification for the price differential between Cost-Plus and selling price

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal, holding that the CAT's approach to expert evidence, cost allocation, and the drawing of adverse inferences was within its legitimate discretion and supported by adequate reasoning. The CAT was entitled to weigh the available evidence, including expert opinion, and to decline to draw adverse inferences against BT. No error of law or irrationality was demonstrated in the CAT's evaluative assessment or its handling of the evidence.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused