The Court of Appeal has definitively rejected an appeal lodged by the administrators of Phones 4U. The appeal challenged a previous judgment by Mr. justice Roth, which had dismissed Phones 4U’s allegations that multiple mobile network operators and their parent companies had colluded or engaged in wrongful conduct leading to the company’s collapse in 2014.

Phones 4U had argued that Mr. Justice Roth made legal errors, including misapplying the ‘Anic presumption’ and incorrectly finding no concerted practice between O2 and EE. They also contended that the judge improperly rejected parts of their claim based on his own factual theories,failed to consider all evidence adequately,and wrongly omitted to draw adverse inferences from a defendant’s inadequate document preservation measures. All these grounds of appeal were unsuccessful.

Lady Justice Falk’s judgment offers meaningful insights into the definition of a “concerted practice” under Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Section 2 of the Competition Act 1998. The ruling also clarifies the nature and impact of the ‘Anic presumption’ and its connection to domestic causation law. Furthermore, the judgment provides a thorough examination of principles applicable to factual challenges against delayed judgments, emphasizing the risks of appellate courts engaging in “island hopping” when reviewing such cases. This comprehensive decision is expected to be of considerable interest to legal practitioners, particularly those specializing in competition law.

The full judgment from the Court of appeal is accessible here.