The Restrictive Practices Court started considering the evidence for and against
resale price maintenance on medicines on October 2.
The case starts with a two-week reading period, during which the judge (Mr Justice
Lightman) and his two lay assessors (Mr James Scott and Dr Penelope Rowlatt)
will read material produced in favour of RPM by the Proprietary Association
of Great Britain and the Proprietary Articles Trade Association and against
it by the Office of Fair Trading.
There is a legal presumption against RPM, which means, according to the OFT,
that the onus is on the PAGB and the PATA to satisfy the court that the removal
of RPM will lead to one or more of the following outcomes: less variety of products;
fewer outlets; higher prices; or reduced service. They will then need to show
that the detriment caused by RPM outweighs the benefits of its loss.
The trial itself is expected to begin on October 16 and may last until early
December. Judgment is likely to be reserved until early next year.