Court of Appeal to reconsider £69m CMA fines on Pfizer and Flynn Pharma over excessive pricing of epilepsy drug phenytoin sodium
The Court of Appeal will reconsider whether to reinstate the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)'s fines on Pfizer and Flynn Pharma over the excessive pricing of phenytoin sodium capsules — an anti-epilepsy drug — following a sequence of appellate decisions that have kept the case unresolved for years. The CMA's original decision found that both companies abused their dominant market positions by raising the price of phenytoin sodium capsules by between 2,300% and 2,600% between 2012 and 2016. The CMA imposed fines totalling £69 million. On appeal, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) — the specialist tribunal that hears competition law appeals in the UK — initially set aside the CMA's decision. The CMA challenged that outcome, and the Court of Appeal has now accepted the case for reconsideration, having rejected the CAT's decision to set aside the CMA's ruling. In its most recent examination, the CAT had determined, in line with the CMA's original finding, that both companies had abused their dominant positions and imposed identical fines. The case is a landmark in UK competition law because it tests the legal standard for what constitutes excessive pricing by a dominant company, an area where UK and EU case law has long struggled to define clear, administrable thresholds. The decision will have significant implications for pharmaceutical pricing, regulated utilities, and any sector where dominance and pricing scrutiny intersect.
Why this matters
This Court of Appeal referral is one of the most consequential pending competition law decisions for the CMA's enforcement credibility. The excessive pricing doctrine — under which a dominant company may breach competition law by charging prices so high as to be unfair — is notoriously difficult to apply, and the decade-long saga of the Pfizer/Flynn case illustrates that challenge acutely. A Court of Appeal ruling reinstating the £69 million fines would confirm the CMA's authority to pursue excessive pricing in the pharmaceutical sector and potentially broader markets. Conversely, a ruling against the CMA would constrain the regulator's appetite for these cases. Either outcome will directly inform how pharmaceutical companies, healthcare regulators, and competition counsel assess pricing risk for dominant products in the UK market.
On the Ground
A trainee in a competition disputes team would assist with preparing the chronology of the case — tracking the sequence of CMA decisions, CAT hearings, and Court of Appeal rulings — and helping with disclosure review and categorisation of documents relevant to pricing evidence. They would also assist in preparing skeleton argument research on the legal test for excessive pricing under UK competition law and updating the client's compliance gap analysis memo to reflect the Court of Appeal's referral.
Interview prep
Soundbite
If the Court of Appeal reinstates £69m in fines, it hands the CMA a durable legal template for tackling pharmaceutical price gouging.
Question you might get
“What legal test does the CMA apply to determine whether a dominant company's pricing is 'excessive', and why has the Pfizer/Flynn case been so difficult to resolve after a decade of litigation?”
Full answer
The Court of Appeal will reconsider whether to reinstate the CMA's £69 million fines on Pfizer and Flynn Pharma, who were found to have raised the price of an epilepsy drug by up to 2,600% between 2012 and 2016. The case matters because it will clarify the legal standard for excessive pricing by dominant companies under UK competition law — an area where the CMA has struggled to secure durable enforcement outcomes through years of tribunal litigation. A decision restoring the fines would embolden the regulator to pursue similar cases in pharmaceuticals and other sectors where a single supplier holds pricing power over dependent customers. This is part of a broader trend of the CMA asserting more active enforcement across health-related markets, which will sustain demand for competition law advisory and litigation work.
My notes
saved