![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
United Kingdom Competition Appeals Tribunal |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Competition Appeals Tribunal >> Argos Ltd & Anor v Office Of Fair Trading [2005] CAT 15 (27 May 2005) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/CAT/2005/15.html Cite as: [2005] CAT 15 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
[2005] CAT 15
IN THE COMPETITION Case No. 1014/1/1/03 - 1015/1/1/03
APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Victoria
House,
Bloomsbury Place,
London WC1A 2EB
29th April 2005
Before:
SIR CHRISTOPHER BELLAMY
(The President)
THE HONOURABLE ANTONY LEWIS
MS VINDELYN
SMITH-HILLMAN
Sitting as a Tribunal in England and Wales
BETWEEN:
ARGOS
LIMITED
&
LITTLEWOODS LIMITED Appellants
and
OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING
(formerly the Director General of Fair Trading) Respondent
Mr. Mark Brealey QC and Mr. Mark Hoskins (instructed by Burges Salmon LLP) appeared for Argos
Limited
Miss Marie Demetriou (instructed by DLA LLP) appeared for Littlewoods Limited.
Mr. Brian Doctor QC and Miss Kassie Smith (instructed by the Solicitor to the Office of Fair Trading) appeared for the Respondent.
THE PRESIDENT:
"(2) The Tribunal may at its discretion, subject to paragraph (3), at any stage of the
proceedings make any order it thinks fit in relation to the payment of costs by one
party to another in respect of the whole or part of the proceedings and in determining
how much the party is required to pay, the Tribunal may take account of the conduct
of all parties in relation to the proceedings."
In fact, that Rule does not make the Tribunal's power as to costs subject to the need for any application for costs to have been made, nor does it appear to us to be appropriate for the Tribunal's jurisdiction to be ousted by an agreement between the parties. We bear in mind that in terms of modern litigation all cases before the Tribunal are subject to the overriding objective of disposing of the case as justly as possible and, in the exercise of its general powers, we do not at all exclude the possibility of making orders for costs without an application having been made, even if the parties'view
of the matter is different from the
view
the Tribunal has arrived at.
"However, the Tribunal's developing experience is that appeals impose a significant resource cost on the public purse in cases involving penalties. If the Tribunal does not use its costs powers to keep cases within manageable bounds, the appealsystem
may not function correctly. In these circumstances it may well, in the future, be appropriate to make orders for costs against unsuccessful appellants in penalty cases, depending of course on the circumstances of the particular case."