British Telecommunications Plc v The Office of Communications

British Telecommunications Plc v The Office of Communications

The CAT erred in law by adopting 'costs follow the event' as the starting point for costs awards against Ofcom in section 192 appeals, failing to apply the principles established in Bradford, Baxendale-Walker, and Perinpanathan. The correct approach is that, absent unreasonable conduct or bad faith, there should not be a presumption that costs are awarded against a regulator acting reasonably and in the public interest.

Parties
Applicant/respondent: British Telecommunications PLC; Respondent/appellant: The Office of Communications (Ofcom)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Competition Appeal Tribunal (cat) Regarding Costs Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; CAT's costs decision set aside and remitted for reconsideration.
Legal Topics
Costs in Regulatory Appeals, Principles for Awarding Costs Against Regulators, Communications Act 2003 Section 192 Appeals, Judicial Review Standards, Regulatory Decision Making
Competition Law Regulatory Law Administrative Law Costs in Regulatory Appeals Principles for Awarding Costs Against Regulators Communications Act 2003 Section 192 Appeals Judicial Review Standards Regulatory Decision Making

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 3 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

British Telecommunications PLC

Applicant/respondent

The Office of Communications (Ofcom)

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Competition Appeal Tribunal (cat) Regarding Costs Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct starting point for awarding costs in appeals against regulatory decisions under section 192 of the Communications Act 2003?
  2. 2 Did the CAT err in law by adopting 'costs follow the event' as the starting point for costs awards against Ofcom?
  3. 3 Should the CAT have applied principles from Bradford, Baxendale-Walker, and Perinpanathan regarding costs orders against regulators?

Ratio Decidendi

The CAT erred in law by adopting 'costs follow the event' as the starting point for costs awards against Ofcom in section 192 appeals, failing to apply the principles established in Bradford, Baxendale-Walker, and Perinpanathan. The correct approach is that, absent unreasonable conduct or bad faith, there should not be a presumption that costs are awarded against a regulator acting reasonably and in the public interest.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; CAT's costs decision set aside and remitted for reconsideration.

Orders

  • Matter remitted to the Competition Appeal Tribunal to decide costs afresh applying correct legal principles as set out in this judgment.