England and Wales Case Law

Professor Carolyn Roberts v Severn Trent Water Limited & Severn Trent Plc & Ors

The Court of Appeal (majority) held that Professor Roberts's claim for abuse of dominance was barred by section 18(8) WIA because the alleged abuse—misleading Ofwat by under-reporting pollution incidents—depended on the existence and breach of the statutory reporting obligation, making the contravention of licence conditions an essential ingredient of the claim. The claim could not be established independently of the regulatory regime, and thus section 18(8) excluded the remedy sought.

Source excerpt

• Abuse of dominant position
• Collective proceedings
• Statutory interpretation
• Price regulation
• Remedies under competition act
• Water industry regulation

Read case analysis

Roberts v Severn Trent Water Limited & Severn Trent PLC & Ors

Roberts v Severn Trent Water Limited & Severn Trent PLC & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 222 (05 March 2026)

The Court of Appeal held that section 18(8) of the Water Industry Act 1991 barred the proposed collective competition claims against water companies.

• Abuse of dominant position
• Collective proceedings order
• Water industry regulation
• Section 18(8) water industry act 1991
• Section 47b competition act 1998
• Misleading a regulator

Read case analysis

Professor Andreas Stephan v Amazon.Com, Inc & Ors

The Court of Appeal refused Amazon permission to appeal two CAT collective proceedings orders concerning Amazon's alleged abuse of dominance.

• Collective proceedings orders
• Litigation funding
• Class actions
• Abuse of dominant position
• Conflict of interest
• Collective-proceedings

Read case analysis

Cabo Concepts Ltd & Anor v MGA Entertainment (UK) Ltd & Anor

Cabo Concepts Ltd & Anor v MGA Entertainment (UK) Ltd & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 1652 (17 December 2025)

Permission to appeal on two grounds was adjourned to a rolled-up hearing in a disputes case about counterfactual loss, while permission on a third ground was refused.

• Abuse of dominant position
• Patent infringement threats
• Damages assessment
• Counterfactual analysis
• Pleading requirements
• Competition-law

Read case analysis

Cabo Concepts Ltd v MGA Entertainment (UK) Ltd

Court of Appeal permission-stage decision in a competition and patent-threats dispute. Grounds 1 and 2 were adjourned to a rolled-up hearing; ground 3 was refused.

• Abuse of dominant position
• Damages
• Counterfactual analysis
• Patent threats
• Pleadings and concessions
• Competition-law

Read case analysis

Amazon.Com Inc & Ors v InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc & Ors

The court directs a further case management hearing in late October to address expedition of the main RAND trial and timing of the jurisdiction challenge, allowing InterDigital time to submit evidence on concerns raised about its conduct and representations in foreign proceedings. Interim RAND relief remains blocked by foreign anti-suit injunctions, but substantive RAND issues may proceed.

Source excerpt

• Rand obligations
• Anti-suit injunctions
• Jurisdiction challenge
• Interim licence declarations
• Patent essentiality
• Abuse of dominant position

Read case analysis

Cinven v Advanz Pharma Corp & Anor

The CAT did not err in law in upholding the CMA's finding of excessive and unfair pricing by Advanz/Cinven for liothyronine tablets. Cost Plus, benchmarked against comparables, is a valid and sufficient test for fairness under competition law. Alternative benchmarks (EIP, PEP, MFP, Portfolio Pricing) are not mandatory or dispositive. The CAT's findings on market structure, contamination, and lack of NHS acquiescence were justified. However, the CAT erred in law in removing the penalty uplift for specific deterrence for Cinven; the Guidance required consideration of the penalty's impact relati…

Source excerpt

• Abuse of dominant position
• Excessive pricing
• Fairness test
• Cost plus benchmark
• Market entry barriers
• Penalties and deterrence

Read case analysis

Amazon.com, Inc & Ors v Interdigital VC Holdings, Inc & Ors

There is a strong and sufficient likelihood that InterDigital would seek anti-suit relief to restrain Amazon's pursuit of final RAND relief in the UK if not prevented by the AASI. The AASI Order is justified to protect the UK court's jurisdiction and prevent vexation or oppression. The Order does not offend comity, as it does not restrain InterDigital from pursuing substantive patent infringement claims or contesting the effect of any UK-determined licence in foreign courts. Clarifications to the Order are appropriate to confirm its scope but do not alter its material effect.

Source excerpt

• Rand/frand licensing
• Anti-suit injunctions
• Comity
• Specific performance
• Jurisdictional challenges
• Patent infringement

Read case analysis

Cabo Concepts Ltd v MGA Entertainment (UK) Ltd

Cabo Concepts Ltd v MGA Entertainment (UK) Ltd [2025] EWHC 1451 (Ch) (16 June 2025)

High Court judgment on claims over the Worldeez launch, including alleged dominance abuse, unlawful agreements, patent threats, causation, and damages.

• Abuse of dominant position
• Unlawful agreements
• Patent infringement threats
• Market definition
• Causation and quantum
• Declaratory relief

Read case analysis

Cinven Capital Management (V) General Partner Ltd & Ors v Competition and Markets Authority

Cinven Capital Management (V) General Partner Ltd & Ors v Competition and Markets Authority [2025] EWCA Civ 578 (08 May 2025)

The Court of Appeal upheld the CMA’s finding of excessive pricing abuse, rejected alternative benchmarks, but held the CAT erred in reducing the penalty for specific deterrence.

• Abuse of dominant position
• Excessive pricing
• Unfair pricing
• Market entry barriers
• Penalty calculation
• Cost plus methodology

Read case analysis