In re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 4) (Director General of Fair Trading v Proprietary Association of Great Britain)

An association may invoke the Convention only where the proceedings determine its own civil rights and obligations, unless it has been formally authorised to represent affected members. Where an appellate court invalidates proceedings affected by apparent bias and a fresh hearing is held before an impartial tribunal, Article 6(1) is not infringed. Wasted costs therefore do not become recoverable as compensation for a Convention breach.

The appellants had successfully challenged apparent bias in the Restrictive Practices Court, causing the original trial to be abandoned and a fresh hearing to begin before a reconstituted court. They claimed compensation for approximately £1 million in wasted costs under Article 6(1) and the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Director General argued that the Proprietary Association of Great Britain was not a victim because the proceedings did not determine its own rights, and that no Article 6 breach remained after the defective proceedings had been invalidated and an impartial retrial made available.

Lord Justice Brooke delivered the judgment of the court. The appeal was dismissed and the application for costs against the Lord Chancellor’s Department was refused.

1. Section 7(1), read with section 7(7) of the Human Rights Act 1998, requires a claimant to be a victim of the alleged Convention violation. PATA qualified because the proceedings determined its own civil rights and obligations. PAGB did not qualify because the proceedings did not determine its own rights and no formal representative order had been made.
2. The procedural rules provided a route by which the individual manufacturers could have been represented by PAGB. The association chose not to use that route. It could not retrospectively acquire victim status through representative relief or joinder under CPR Part 19.
3. An appellate or reviewing court may remedy a defect in first-instance proceedings by invalidating the defective decision and providing a fresh determination before an independent and impartial tribunal. The fresh hearing before the reconstituted Restrictive Practices Court therefore prevented any continuing Article 6(1) violation.
4. Authorities awarding compensation or domestic legal expenses after an established Convention violation did not apply. Here, the defective proceedings had been corrected before any compensable Article 6(1) violation occurred. The Lord Chancellor’s Department was awarded the costs of the appeal, and leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

1. Court of Appeal: The court had earlier allowed the appellants’ appeal against the Restrictive Practices Court’s refusal to vacate the trial because of apparent bias. In this judgment it dismissed the claim for Convention compensation.
2. Restrictive Practices Court: On 17 November 2000 the court declined to vacate the contested trial. Proceedings later restarted before a reconstituted court and ended when the appellants withdrew their opposition to the relief sought.