to ensure a fair hearing than normally associated with civil litigation. If the hearing is a private dispute involving a claim for damages, we must understand complex regression models to determine the extent of any overcharge and pass-on. Forensic accounting evidence will often be adduced to determine any loss of profit caused by any pass-on (volume effects) and, lastly, the amount of any compound interest which, given the secretive nature and duration of cartels, can often double the size of the main claim. All of this is on top of the esoteric points of competition law that gave rise to the dispute in the first place. Can you tell us about one of your international appearances? One of my recent highlights was appearing in the Supreme Court of the incredibly friendly Island of Mauritius. I was given special dispensation to appear on behalf of Emtel, one of the mobile phone operators in Mauritius, who was suing the fixed line operator, Mauritius Telecom, for attempting to remove it from the market in favour of its own mobile phone operator, Cellplus (Case 2017 SCJ 294 Emtel v Cellplus). The case is now before the Privy Council. What in your view have been the main developments in competition law? Competition law has been litigated in the UK now for some time. However, the last few years have seen some fundamental changes in the way it is litigated. First, Brexit has made competition law more UK-centric. I appeared regularly manufacturers had admitted their liability as a part of the EU leniency and settlement programme. We successfully argued that the defendants should be bound by the findings of fact admitted as part of these programmes. It would be an abuse of process to re-litigate such findings in the domestic courts. The bread and butter, though, are the trials. There is much litigation concerning competition law, whether it be an appeal against a decision adopted by the CMA or a claim between two private parties. This year I have had a three-week and a five-week trial. Both amounted to complex pieces of litigation involving significant disclosure, witness evidence and expert evidence adduced by both sides. These trials do have extra dimensions. If the hearing is an appeal against an infringement decision it has the added dimension of being quasi-criminal because of the substantial penalties that are involved. That involves a greater duty 16 LAWYERMONTHLY JANUARY 2023
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Mjk3Mzkz