Establishing the Autonomy of CAT Follow-On Claims: Transferred Proceedings Trigger CAT Limitation Rules

Introduction

This case, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care & Ors v Lundbeck Ltd & Ors ([2025] EWCA Civ 677), concerned follow-on damages claims brought by NHS funders after an EU Commission decision found unlawful “pay-for-delay” agreements in the market for the antidepressant citalopram. Lundbeck and generic rivals were fined for infringing Article 101 TFEU. The NHS bodies (“Claimants”) issued stand-alone proceedings in the High Court in June 2019, stayed them pending appeal, and then in July 2021 agreed to transfer the action into the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”) under section 16 of the Enterprise Act 2002. The Defendants contended that the transferred case remained a time-barred High Court action under the Limitation Act 1980, rather than a new CAT follow-on claim under Rule 119 of the CAT Rules 2015 and Rule 31 of the CAT Rules 2003.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the CAT’s decision that:

Filing a Rule 30 Claim Form in the CAT after transfer constituted the making of a fresh follow-on claim subject to the two-year limitation under Rules 119/31, not the six-year High Court limit.
The words “make a claim” in Rule 30 and the savings provision in Rule 119 apply to any claim filed in the CAT, whether arising de novo or by transfer.
No contractual estoppel arose from the transfer order to carry forward the High Court limitation defence into CAT proceedings.
An additional respondent’s notice clarified that claims against a newly joined 12th defendant, added post-transfer, are separately governed by the two-year CAT limitation.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Case AT.39226 Lundbeck (EU Commission Decision, 2013) – established reverse-payment pay-for-delay infringement of Article 101 TFEU.
Gemalto Holdings BV v Infineon Technologies AG [2022] EWCA Civ 782 – time runs under Limitation Act 1980 from when a claimant reasonably knows of a prima facie cartel infringement.
Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Mastercard Inc [2015] EWHC 3472 (Ch) – held that Rules 119/31 do not apply to transferred High Court stand-alone claims, but was distinguished on its facts.
Merricks v Mastercard [2023] CAT 15 and [2024] EWCA Civ 759 – confirmed that CAT’s transitional limitation savings should not revive claims already time-barred under High Court rules.
Chitty on Contracts and authorities such as Springwell Navigation Corp v JP Morgan – principles on contractual estoppel.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal adopted a forward-looking, text-based construction of the CAT Rules:

Rule 30 defines how “a claim under section 47A … shall be made by filing a claim form.” Filing the form in the CAT therefore makes a claim for CAT purposes.
Rule 119(2)–(3) preserves the two-year CAT limitation for any section 47A claim arising before 1 October 2015, regardless of how it originated.
Headings and terminology such as “commencement” or “made” in the Rules are subsidiary to the clear textual command that a CAT claim is made by filing the prescribed form.
The transfer mechanism in section 16 Enterprise Act 2002 and Rule 72 CAT Rules merely moves proceedings into the CAT’s jurisdiction; it does not freeze or re-impose High Court limitation.
General Principles (Rule 4) require fairness, proportionality and substance over form—rejecting a technical rule-hanging that would extinguish a valid follow-on right.
Contractual estoppel was dismissed because the transfer order protected only “rights … as constituted in this Court” (High Court) pre-transfer; it did not intend to waive the new CAT claim rights.

Impact

The decision clarifies that:

Transferred High Court competition claims, once re-filed by Rule 30 claim form, are fresh section 47A follow-on proceedings governed by CAT limitation rules.
Pretence that High Court limitation rights survive such a transfer is untenable without explicit and clear agreement to that effect.
Claimants may rely on the specialist CAT regime even if their original High Court actions are time-barred.
The case guides future strategy in parallel or successive competition claims, confirming the autonomy of CAT procedure post-transfer.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Rule 30 Claim Form – the official document you file to start a follow-on damages case in the CAT under section 47A.
Rule 119 Savings – a transitional provision that preserves a two-year time limit for CAT follow-on claims based on pre-2015 EU decisions.
Section 16 Transfer – statutory power allowing High Court competition cases to be moved into the CAT for its specialist hearing and management.
Limitation Act 1980 – sets a six-year deadline for ordinary tort-based competition claims in the courts, running from when you knew or ought to have known of the breach.
Follow-On Action – a damages claim that can “follow on” directly from a final infringement decision, without proving the breach itself.
Contractual Estoppel – when parties contractually agree to treat a fact as true, they cannot later deny it, but such estoppels must be explicit and clear.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s ruling confirms the independence and coherence of the CAT’s follow-on damages regime. It holds that a transferred High Court action, once a CAT Claim Form is filed under Rule 30, becomes a new section 47A proceeding subject solely to CAT limitation rules. Technical attempts to resurrect six-year High Court time bars or invoke implied estoppels fail without clear contractual provisions. This decision secures legal certainty for competition claimants seeking redress in the specialist forum of the CAT, safeguarding the legislative intent behind the dual system of limitation and the specialist jurisdiction created by Parliament.