Ruling (Form of order and costs)

Neutral citation:

[2009] CAT 31


26 Nov 2009



Judgment of the Tribunal in relation to the form of the order to give effect to the Main Judgment ([2009] CAT 27) and costs.

In respect of the form of the order, the Tribunal considered that the Main Judgment was to be read as a whole, rather than in a series of isolated sections. It therefore rejected the submissions of the Competition Commission and Barclays that the Commission should reconsider the decision to impose the POSP in accordance with the principles set out in particular paragraphs of the Main Judgment. The Tribunal concluded that it was for the Commission to decide upon the proper scope of its reconsideration of the question whether to impose the POSP, provided that, in doing so, it took into account the principles set out in the Main Judgment.

The Tribunal concluded that the appropriate order in relation to costs was that Barclays should obtain payment by the Commission of half its reasonable and proportionate costs, subject to assessment by a Costs Judge. The Tribunal refused to award Lloyds its costs against the Commission and also refused the Commission’s application for its costs of responding to the intervention of Shop Direct. The Tribunal referred to its approach whereby it has generally been found to be just to direct that the costs of and occasioned by interventions should lie where they fall, save where particular circumstances lead to a conclusion that justice would be served by some different order.

This is an unofficial summary prepared by the Registry of the Competition Appeal Tribunal.