Macfarlanes has assisted Prysmian in succeeding on a preliminary issue in the context of the collective proceedings Spottiswoode v Nexans & others (the “Spottiswoode proceedings”), which affects around 50% of the claim value asserted by the class representative.

The Spottiswoode proceedings follow on from the Decision of the European Commission dated 2 April 2014 in Case AT.39610 (Power Cables) which found that a number of cable manufacturers had been involved in an anti-competitive infringement relating to high-voltage power cables between 1999 to January 2009.  

Ms Spottiswoode alleges that purchasers of high-voltage (underground and subsea) power cables paid increased prices as a result of the infringement.  She argues that this overcharge caused the government to award a higher level of subsidy (in the form of Renewable Obligations Certificates (ROCs)/MWh) than it would have done in a counterfactual scenario absent the infringement, and that the cost of this has been (and continues to be) passed on to electricity suppliers, including through payments made by suppliers in respect of offshore windfarms pursuant to the UK Government’s Renewables Obligation scheme, and by those suppliers to the billpayers who form the class she represents. 

In May of this year, the Competition Appeal Tribunal heard argument in relation to a preliminary issue regarding whether, if the costs of relevant subsea power cables were increased by a hypothetical overcharge as alleged by Ms Spottiswoode, the Government’s banding decision as to the level of subsidy (number of ROCs/MWh) it provided to offshore wind under the Order made under its Renewable Obligations scheme in 2010 (ROO 2010) would have been any different in the counterfactual scenario.  

In its judgment handed down on 30 October 2025, the Tribunal undertook a thorough review of the process by which the Government’s banding decision was made.  It agreed with Prysmian that even if the costs of the power cables supplied to the relevant windfarms which the Government considered in reaching its ROO 2010 banding decision were subject to the hypothetical alleged by Ms Spottiswoode, the subsidy (number of ROCs/MWh) awarded to offshore wind would not have been any less.  In particular, it considered that (i) the banding exercise was an inherently imprecise one, given the difficulty of forecasting revenue streams and production costs; (ii) the windfarm developers’ banding requests (which instigated the reassessment of the banding in 2010) would likely have been the same in the counterfactual; (iii) the Ernst & Young report which informed the Government’s decision-making would have continued to justify a banding at the same level (2 ROCs/MWh) in the counterfactual; and (iv) the Government was generally reluctant to move to smaller banding increments (e.g. of 1.9 rather than 2).

The Macfarlanes team was led by Partners Cameron Firth and Simon Day, together with Senior Associates Rachel Carter and Dan Fisher and Associate Robyn Welham.  The Macfarlanes team was assisted by Brick Court’s Helen Davies KC and Monckton Chambers’ Fiona Banks, alongside Dr Boaz Moselle of Compass Lexecon.