header-logo header-logo

14 December 2016
Issue: 7727 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Pfizer fined for excessive prices

Pharmaceutical company Pfizer has been fined a record £84.2m for charging excessive and unfair prices in the UK for an anti-epilepsy drug.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) also fined the distributor Flynn Pharma £5.2m, after finding that each company broke competition law for the drug, phenytoin sodium. The CMA has ordered the companies to reduce their prices.

In September 2012, the price increased by 2,600% overnight, when the company de-branded (or genericised) the product. This meant the NHS was charged £67.50 rather than £2.83 for 100mg packs of the drug, before the price decreased to £54 in May, 2014. Some 48,000 patients in the UK use the drug to control seizures, and cannot easily switch to another medicine.

The CMA found that both companies held a dominant market position, and that each abused that position.

Philip Marsden, chairman of the case decision group for the CMA’s investigation, said: “This is the highest fine the CMA has imposed and it sends out a clear message to the sector that we are determined to crack down on such behaviour and to protect customers, including the NHS, and taxpayers from being exploited.”

Gustaf Duhs, head of competition and regulatory at Stevens & Bolton, said: “It is very rare for competition regulators to take action in respect of excessive prices because it is very hard to define when a price becomes excessive, and because in a competitive market excessive prices are unsustainable (an increase in price will lead to a loss in market share).” 

Issue: 7727 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll