Brick Court Chambers

News & Events

‘One of the super-sets’, Brick Court Chambers is ‘an all-round strong’ set with ‘a large selection of high-quality competition law specialists’, ‘top commercial counsel’, ‘an excellent chambers for banking litigation’, and a ‘go-to’ set for public administrative law.
The Legal 500 2020
The clerks’ room ‘sets the benchmark’ for other sets with its ‘friendly, knowledgeable, and hardworking’ clerks.
The Legal 500 2020
"An outstanding commercial set with a track record of excellence across its core areas of work."
Chambers & Partners 2018
"A set that is singled out for its "first-rate" clerking and "client service-oriented, commercial approach."

Consumers’ Association “Which?” applies to withdraw £480m collective action against Qualcomm following trial

17/02/26

The consumer group Which? has today issued a statement that it is applying to the Competition Appeal Tribunal for permission to withdraw its claim against US telecoms company Qualcomm Incorporated in its entirety.

In 2021, Which? brought an ‘opt-out’ collective action against Qualcomm on behalf of an estimated 29 million British smartphone owners. It alleged that Qualcomm, which supplies chipsets to smartphone makers and also licenses its patented technology, refused to supply its chipsets to Apple and Samsung unless those companies paid inflated royalties to Qualcomm for a licence to use its patents. Which? alleged that this practice enabled Qualcomm to charge Apple and Samsung artificially high fees, which then pushed up the cost of smartphones for consumers.

Which? claimed over £480 million in damages. A five-week trial of the claim was held between October and November 2025, in which the Tribunal heard evidence from Qualcomm’s senior executives, industry participants, and expert economists.

Following trial, the parties reached agreement that Which? will now apply to the Tribunal for permission to withdraw the proceedings, without any payment by Qualcomm. As explained in Which?’s public statement, Which? has concluded, based on the evidence and the arguments at trial, that the Tribunal will find that:

(i) Qualcomm did not coerce Apple, Apple’s chipset manufacturers, or Samsung to sign any patent licences or chipset agreements;

(ii) Qualcomm did not leverage its position as a chipset supplier to coerce Apple, Apple’s chipset manufacturers, or Samsung to agree to any licensing terms; and

(iii) Qualcomm’s licensing and chipset practices did not infringe competition laws, did not result in inflated royalties, and did not lead to an increase in prices consumers paid for their mobile phones.

Which?’s public statement is here.

Daniel Jowell KC, Nicholas Saunders KC, David Bailey, Sophie Bird, Charles Wall and Alexandra Breckenridge acted for Qualcomm at trial, instructed by Norton Rose Fulbright.

Emma Mockford and Jonathan Scott acted for Qualcomm at an earlier stage in the proceedings since certification.

All members of Brick Court Chambers are self employed barristers. Any views expressed are those of the individual barristers and not of Brick Court Chambers as a whole.