Competition and Markets Authority (Respondent) v Flynn Pharma Ltd and another (Appellants) Competition and Markets Authority (Respondent) v Pfizer Inc and another (Appellants) [2022] UKSC 14
Related News
- Letter from the Justice Committee to the Lord Chancellor on The regulation of the legal professions
- SRA draft guidance for in-house solicitors
- The Principal Office Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations 2024
- Companies House: Changes to UK company law
- Boodia & Anor v Slade (t/a Richard Slade And Company) [2023] EWHC 2963 (KB)
- The Law Society – The challenges regulating in-house lawyers
Competition and Markets Authority (Respondent) v Flynn Pharma Ltd and another (Appellants) Competition and Markets Authority (Respondent) v Pfizer Inc and another (Appellants) [2022] UKSC 14
In the Supreme Court’s judgment, there is no generally applicable principle that all public bodies should enjoy a protected costs position when they lose a case. However, the judgment does not cast any doubt on the position of the SRA in relation to costs following the decision in Baxendale-Walker v Law Society [2007] EWCA Civ 233.
See here.
‹ Back to News
