Phones 4U Limited (in administration) v EE Limited & Ors

Phones 4U Limited (in administration) v EE Limited & Ors

The appeal is dismissed. The trial judge made no material error of law or fact. No concerted practice or collusion was established between the respondents. The Anic presumption was rebutted by evidence of independent commercial decisions. Delay in judgment did not render findings unsafe. No adverse inference was warranted from missing documents.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Phones 4U Limited (in administration); First Defendant/respondent: EE Limited; Second Defendant/respondent: Deutsche Telekom AG; Third Defendant/respondent: Orange SA; Fourth Defendant/respondent: Vodafone Limited; Fifth Defendant/respondent: Vodafone Group Public Limited Company; Sixth Defendant/respondent: Telefonica UK Limited; Seventh Defendant/respondent: Telefónica, S. A.; Eighth Defendant/respondent: Telefonica O2 Holdings Limited; Intervener: Competition and Markets Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Concerted Practices, Article 101 TFEU, Competition Act 1998 Section 2, Anticompetitive Agreements, Causation, Adverse Inference, Delay in Judgment, Appellate Review
Competition Law Commercial Law Concerted Practices Article 101 TFEU Competition Act 1998 Section 2 Anticompetitive Agreements Causation 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 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phones 4U Limited (in administration)

Claimant/appellant

EE Limited

First Defendant/respondent

Deutsche Telekom AG

Second Defendant/respondent

Orange SA

Third Defendant/respondent

Vodafone Limited

Fourth Defendant/respondent

Vodafone Group Public Limited Company

Fifth Defendant/respondent

Telefonica UK Limited

Sixth Defendant/respondent

Telefónica, S. A.

Seventh Defendant/respondent

Telefonica O2 Holdings Limited

Eighth Defendant/respondent

Competition and Markets Authority

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents engaged in concerted practices contrary to Article 101(1) TFEU and Section 2 of the Competition Act 1998
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in law or fact regarding concertation, causation, and the Anic presumption
  3. 3 Whether delay in judgment affected the safety of findings

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed. The trial judge made no material error of law or fact. No concerted practice or collusion was established between the respondents. The Anic presumption was rebutted by evidence of independent commercial decisions. Delay in judgment did not render findings unsafe. No adverse inference was warranted from missing documents.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No liability found against respondents for breach of Article 101(1) TFEU or Section 2 Competition Act 1998
  • No damages awarded