Skip to main content
CLOSE

Charities

Close

Corporate and Commercial

Close

Employment and Immigration

Close

Fraud and Investigations

Close

Individuals

Close

Litigation

Close

Planning, Infrastructure and Regeneration

Close

Public Law

Close

Real Estate

Close

Restructuring and Insolvency

Close

Energy

Close

Entrepreneurs

Close

Private Wealth

Close

Real Estate

Close

Tech and Innovation

Close

Transport and Infrastructure

Close
Home / News and Insights / Case Studies / Is fairness a principle of judicial review?

R (on the application of Gallaher Group Ltd) v Competition & Markets Authority [2018] UKSC 25

Why is it important?

The decision reaffirms the basis on which the decisions of public authorities can be challenged by way of judicial review.

What happened?

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) appealed against a Court of Appeal decision that its predecessor, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), had breached a public law duty to give equal treatment to parties subject to investigation.

During an investigation by the OFT into alleged price fixing in the tobacco market, the 13 parties were given the opportunity to reduce the penalties against them by entering Early Resolution Agreements (ERAs). During ERA negotiations, one party (TMR) was told by the OFT that it would vary or withdraw its decision against them in the event of a successful appeal by one of the other parties. When such an appeal was subsequently upheld, the OFT agreed to repay TMR’s penalty and a contribution to its costs. The other parties, who had not received the same assurance from the OFT, argued that they should nonetheless be treated in the same way as TMR. After the OFT refused, they brought claims for judicial review.

The respondents ultimately brought judicial review claims, which failed in the High Court but succeeded on appeal. The CMA appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the court say?

The Supreme Court allowed the CMA’s appeal. Both of the lower courts had erred in accepting that the OFT was required to comply with a ‘principle of equal treatment,’ which does not in fact exist as a distinct principle of administrative law. The case had to be determined by the ordinary principles of judicial review, most notably irrationality and legitimate expectation; inconsistency by CMA, even when it resulted in ‘conspicuous unfairness’ as between the parties, was not enough.

Take away

The decisions of public authorities can be subject to judicial review if they act outside the constraints of lawfulness and rationality; ‘manifestly unfair and unequal treatment’ is not a sufficient basis for judicial review if those constraints are not breached.

Related Articles

Our Offices

London
One Bartholomew Close
London
EC1A 7BL

Cambridge
50/60 Station Road
Cambridge
CB1 2JH

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
Grosvenor House, Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

 

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
Grosvenor House, Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

  • Lexcel
  • CYBER ESSENTIALS PLUS

© BDB Pitmans 2024. One Bartholomew Close, London EC1A 7BL - T +44 (0)345 222 9222

Our Services

Charities chevron
Corporate and Commercial chevron
Employment and Immigration chevron
Fraud and Investigations chevron
Individuals chevron
Litigation chevron
Planning, Infrastructure and Regeneration chevron
Public Law chevron
Real Estate chevron
Restructuring and Insolvency chevron

Sectors and Groups

Private Wealth chevron
Real Estate chevron
Transport and Infrastructure chevron