The Court of Appeal has reversed a Competition Appeal Tribunal finding that footwear supplier Deckers UK Ltd committed resale price maintenance when it cut off supply to a retailer running a discount clearance website. The ruling in Deckers UK Ltd v Up & Running (UK) Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 553 reshapes RPM risk for brand owners.
Handed down on 8 May 2026, the decision is essential reading for competition counsel, in-house teams at brand owners and any retailer in a selective distribution network.
What was the dispute?
Up & Running operates a chain of specialist running-shoe stores and a website. From 2016, it had been an authorised retailer of HOKA-branded shoes supplied by Deckers. In July 2020, hit by Covid lockdown closures and excess stock, Up & Running proposed launching a clearance website to sell out-of-season HOKA shoes at a discount.
Deckers refused permission. Up & Running launched the clearance site anyway. In December 2021, Deckers terminated supply.
Up & Running brought a standalone damages claim under section 47A of the Competition Act 1998. The Competition Appeal Tribunal ruled in October 2024 ([2024] CAT 61) that Deckers had committed two “by object” infringements of the Chapter I prohibition. The first was an online sales restriction. The second was indirect resale price maintenance, achieved through termination rather than direct price-fixing.
What did the Court of Appeal decide?
The Court of Appeal has overturned the RPM finding. The judges held that the CAT applied too broad a test to what amounts to indirect price-fixing.
A supplier exercising its right to enforce qualitative criteria within a selective distribution system does not commit RPM merely because the practical effect is to prevent deep discounting on a particular sales channel. To find an indirect RPM infringement, the tribunal must identify conduct genuinely aimed at fixing or restraining the retailer’s freedom to set prices, not conduct primarily directed at controlling the channel through which sales take place.
The online sales restriction analysis was left more intact, though the court refined parts of the CAT’s reasoning.
What does the judgment add to the law?
The ruling provides the first appellate-level UK guidance on indirect RPM in the post-Vertical Block Exemption Regulation landscape. It pulls back from a position that had concerned consumer-goods brands since the CAT’s 2024 ruling.
The decision aligns UK competition law more closely with the European Commission’s revised Vertical Guidelines, which distinguish between conduct that restricts a retailer’s ability to determine its sale price and conduct that controls the channel of sale.
Brand owners can again terminate supply to retailers who breach selective distribution criteria without an automatic risk of being found liable for RPM. The judgment narrows what counts as a “by object” infringement, which carries the most onerous evidential and damages consequences. Competition counsel will be reading it carefully to advise clients on distribution policy and litigation risk.
What does it mean for the wider commercial market?
Standalone damages claims under section 47A have grown sharply in recent years. Deckers will be cited in many of those cases, both as a substantive authority and as a reminder of the appellate-level threshold for finding by-object infringement.
The case also illustrates the procedural strain on the CAT. Up & Running was self-represented at points in the original proceedings, and the judgment will inform how the tribunal handles complex competition cases brought by smaller commercial claimants.
The question of damages, originally split off from the main liability trial at CAT level, will now require reassessment in light of the appellate findings. For Up & Running, that means significantly less recoverable loss than the CAT decision had suggested. For Deckers, vindication on the headline RPM allegation, though parts of the online sales restriction analysis remain in place.
The wider message for the consumer-goods sector is that the post-Covid surge in discount-channel disputes will continue to generate appellate-level law for some time. The full Court of Appeal judgment is available on Find Case Law. The original CAT decision remains on the Competition Appeal Tribunal website.