SC is a Jamaican national, now aged 29. He arrived in the United Kingdom on 26 December 2001, at the age of 10, to join his mother who had left Jamaica in 1999. In December 2002, SC’s mother applied for asylum on the basis of her sexuality. Following a successful appeal, SC and his mother were granted indefinite leave to remain as refugees on 9 October 2003. Between 2007 and 2012, SC was convicted for a number of criminal offences, including robbery, common assault, possession of a bladed article, offences relating to the police, courts or prisons and driving offences. His most recent conviction was in June 2012, for which he was sentenced to a period of two years’ detention in a young offenders’ institution.

                On 11 September 2012, the Secretary of State for the Home Department ("SSHD") notified SC of his liability to deportation as a foreign criminal and, on 3 October 2012, of the SSHD’s intention to cease his refugee status. On 22 January 2013, after receiving written representations, the SSHD decided to no longer recognise SC as a refugee and, on 20 March 2013, the SSHD informed SC of her decision to make an order for his deportation under section 32(5) of the U.K Borders Act 2007 Act. SC lodged an appeal against the latter decision with the First-tier Tribunal, appealing on asylum and human rights grounds, relying on articles 2, 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR"). On 6 March 2015, the First-tier Tribunal allowed SC’s appeal and, on 21 October 2015, following an appeal by the SSHD, this decision was upheld by the Upper Tribunal. However, on 20 December 2017, the Court of Appeal set aside the decisions of both Tribunals, remitting SC’s appeal from the SSHD’s decision to be heard afresh by the First-tier Tribunal. SC now appeals against the Court of Appeal’s decision to the Supreme Court.

This appeal concerns costs and arises out of an investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority (the CMA) into the pricing of an epilepsy drug. Following an investigation lasting over three years, the CMA found that Flynn and Pfizer had abused their dominant positions in the UK market under domestic and EU competition law by charging excessive prices. Flynn and Pfizer appealed the CMA’s decision to the Competition Appeal Tribunal which decided that although Flynn and Pfizer held dominant positions in the market, the CMA had made errors in deciding that they had abused their positions.
The Competition Appeal Tribunal separately considered costs arising out of the appeal. Flynn and Pfizer both claimed their costs on the basis that they substantially won their respective appeals. The Competition Appeal Tribunal decided that Flynn and Pfizer were entitled to recover some of their costs from the CMA. The CMA appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and decided that the starting point or default position is that no order for costs should be made against a regulator who has brought or defended proceedings in the Competition Appeal Tribunal acting purely in its regulatory capacity. That starting point can be departed from for good reason but the mere fact that the regulator has been unsuccessful is not enough. Flynn and Pfizer now appeal to the Supreme Court.