Justin Le Patourel v BT Group PLC & Anor (II)

Justin Le Patourel v BT Group PLC & Anor (II)

The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal, holding that the CAT did not err in law in its approach to expert evidence, allocation of common costs, or evaluation of economic value and justification for pricing. The applicant’s grounds were factual or evaluative disputes within the CAT’s discretion and did not amount to errors of law or irrationality.

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
08 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From Competition Appeal Tribunal Judgment
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Abuse of Dominance, Excessive Pricing, Collective Actions, Cost Plus Test, Economic Value, Market Definition, Burden of Proof, Expert Evidence
Competition Law Abuse of Dominance Excessive Pricing Collective Actions Cost Plus Test Economic Value Market Definition Burden of Proof +1 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

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From Competition Appeal Tribunal Judgment

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
  2. 2 Whether the CAT erred in attributing 40% of BT’s common costs to SFV services and in its use of the SAC Combi test
  3. 3 Whether the CAT erred in its Limb 2 analysis of economic value and justification for price differentials

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal, holding that the CAT did not err in law in its approach to expert evidence, allocation of common costs, or evaluation of economic value and justification for pricing. The applicant’s grounds were factual or evaluative disputes within the CAT’s discretion and did not amount to errors of law or irrationality.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused