“He really takes the time to understand all the important legal arguments, enabling the client to be put in the best position.” “He is unflappable and he has a lightness of touch in his presentation to court. He is reassuring and puts you at ease with your case.” “He is brilliant: a razor-sharp intellect, and he is a pleasure to work with.” – Chambers UK, 2022

Philip Moser KC has a heavyweight competition law practice and is listed as a Leader in Competition Law in Chambers UK, Chambers Global and the Legal 500.

Amongst others, he is or was Lead Counsel in most of the recent large collective or group actions before the High Court and Competition Appeals Tribunal, including: Gutmann (‘Boundary Fares’); Emerald Air Cargo litigation (at the time the biggest UK follow-on damages claim); FX for Société Générale); Trucks (for Boots & ors); Dieselgate (for Porsche); Interchange (for the SH Umbrella Claimants); Car Parts Cartel (for the Denso Defendants) and claims against Big Tech firms, Amazon (“Buy Box”) and Apple (“iPhone Batteries”) as well as Kelkoo v Google.

Philip also advises on the intersection between competition, state aid and procurement law.

Philip taught competition law at Robinson College, Cambridge and was nominated as Competition Silk of the Year by Legal 500 in 2020.

Cases

Selected Current/Recent Cases

• Vauxhall Motors Ltd & Others v Denso Automotive UK Ltd – thermal system components – cartel claim – damages – Article 101 – Chapter I – follow on and standalone; jurisdiction
• Gutmann v Apple Inc  Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2024] EWCA Civ 702; CAT: [2023] CAT 67  — ‘Batteries’ Apple iPhone case; Abuse of dominant position; Collective proceedings; Mobile telephones; Striking out; certification
• Gutmann v Stagecoach South Western Trains Ltd Competition Appeal Tribunal [2024] CAT 32 – Abuse of dominant position; Collective proceedings; Damages; Railways; Settlement (first UK collective settlement in favour of class of consumers)
• Hunter v Amazon.com / Hammond v Amazon.com Inc Competition Appeal Tribunal [2024] CAT 8 – Abuse of dominant position; Collective proceedings; first contested UK carriage dispute in class action
• The Trucks Second Wave Proceedings, Re  Competition Appeal Tribunal [2024] CAT 2 – Cartels; Case management; Goods vehicles; Passing on
• Umbrella Interchange Fee Claimants v Umbrella Interchange Fee Defendants; Merricks v Mastercard Competition Appeal Tribunal [2023] CAT 60 – Interchange Fees; Collective proceedings; Concurrent expert evidence; Private enforcement; passing on
• Gutmann v First MTR South Western Trains Ltd & ors (“Boundary Fares”) Competition Appeal Tribunal (Intervention of SoS:) [2023] CAT 23 – collective proceedings order; certification; train tickets; Boundary Fares; unfair pricing; unfair sales system
• AdBlue “Emissions” litigation – “Dieselgate” – defeat devices – for car manufacturer in Group Litigation – ongoing
• London and South Eastern Railway v Gutmann [2021] CAT 31 (certification); Court of Appeal [2022] EWCA Civ 1077 – collective proceedings – section 47B of the Competition Act 1998 – Chapter II prohibition – “Boundary Fares” – damages – rail passengers – certification – aggregate damages: not only for quantum but also liability
• Allianz Global Investors & ors v Deutsche Bank & ors (inc. Société Générale) (“FX2”) – Anti-competitive practices; Breach of statutory duty; Defences; EU law; Foreign exchange; Investment funds; Market manipulation; Passing on; Reflective losses
• Good Law Project v The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care & Abingdon [2022] EWHC 2468 (TCC) – procurement law – Covid contracts – antigen testing – rationality – apparent bias – nationality preference – equal treatment – State aid – none found – Good Law Project found not to have standing
• Viasat UK Ltd v Ofcom & aor [2020] EWCA Civ 624 – Communications satellites – in-flight broadband – EU law – Commission procurement – equal treatment – transparency – unfair advantage – wireless telegraphy licences
• La Gaitana Farms SA and others v British Airways plc and others [2019] EWCA Civ 37; [2019] 1 W.L.R. 3793 – competition law – Article 102 – cartel damages – standalone claims – temporal scope – pre-Reg.1/2003 infringements – retrospectivity
• Vattenfall AB v Prysmian SpA [2018] EWHC 1694 (Ch) – Art. 101 – power cable cartel – jurisdiction – Follow-on and standalone damages – subsidiary companies – ‘anchor’ defendants
• Emerald Supplies Limited and Others v British Airways Plc & Ors [2017] EWHC 2420 (Ch) (on appeal to CA) – “Air Cargo” cartel – overcharge on freight charges – follow-on damages claim – standalone claim – temporal scope
• Hyundai & others v BA (stayed) – “Air Cargo” cartel – overcharge on freight charges – Korean law – standalone claim –damages
• Westpoint Group & ors v Farmcare UK & ors (CAT) (settled) – dominant position – vets – injunction – damages – market for TB testing
• Edenred (Group UK) Limited v Her Majesty’s Treasury and others [2015] UKSC 45, Supreme Court (Public Procurement – outsourcing contract – Tax Free Childcare – material variation – not substantial – contract review clauses – Reg. 72 Public Contracts Regulations 2015); Court of Appeal: [2015] EWCA Civ 326; High Court: [2015] EWHC 90 (QB).
• Recall Support Services Ltd v Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport [2014] EWCA Civ 1370, Court of Appeal; Telecoms – Mobile telephone networks – GSM Gateway – commercial use restriction – breach of European Union law – damages

‘Moser is first class” and “extremely clear in his advice.” “He is sharp-witted and knows how to engage with judges and identify the key issues in a case.’’ – Star Individuals, Chambers UK, 2022

Philip Moser KC is ranked as a Star Individual and Leading Silk in Procurement Law by Legal 500 and Chambers UK and is regularly instructed by private contractors, the Government and public bodies in this area. His numerous procurement cases include the Supreme Court case of Edenred, the Court of Appeal in Ocean Outdoor and Rail Franchising and numerous automatic suspension cases since doing the first ever, Indigo Services.

Cases

Recent or ongoing cases include:

• Braceurself Ltd v NHS England Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2024] EWCA Civ 39; [2024] 3 W.L.R. 319; 212 Con. L.R. 95; (permission: [2022] EWHC 3509 (TCC)) – Public procurement procedures; Right to effective remedy; Sufficiently serious test; state of mind
• International Game Technology Plc v Gambling Commission King’s Bench Division (Technology & Construction Court) [2023] EWHC 1420 (TCC) (preliminary issues); [2023] EWHC 2226 (TCC) (costs of interested parties); Judgment: [2023] EWHC 1961 (TCC); [2024] P.T.S.R. 65; 209 Con. L.R. 225 – Economic operators; EU law; Locus standi; National Lottery; Public procurement procedures; Statutory licences; Sub-contractors
• Braceurself Ltd v NHS England Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2023] EWCA Civ 837 – Cross-appeals; Permission to appeal; Public contracts; Respondents’ notices; Rules of court; Split trials
• Camelot UK Lotteries Ltd v Gambling Commission Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2022] EWCA Civ 1020 14 Jul 2022 – Permission to Appeal – American Cyanamid – suspension lifting – proper approach – undertakings
• Good Law Project v The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care & Abingdon [2022] EWHC 2468 (TCC) – procurement law – Covid contracts – antigen testing – rationality – apparent bias – nationality preference – equal treatment – State aid – none found – Good Law Project found not to have standing
• Camelot UK Lotteries Ltd v Gambling Commission (Allwyn Entertainment Ltd and another, interested parties); International Game Technology plc and others v Gambling Commission (Allwyn Entertainment Ltd and another, interested parties [2022] EWHC 1664 (TCC) t – Automatic suspension – Application to lift automatic suspension – Knowledge of standstill letter – Subcontractors’ standing to sue – Partial lifting – Expedited trial – Concession Contracts Regulations 2016, SI 2016/273, reg 56.
• Draeger Safety UK Ltd v London Fire Commissioner (MSA (Britain) Ltd, interested party) [2021] EWHC 2221 (TCC) automatic suspension – Defendant applying to lift automatic suspension of contract award – Claimant opposing application to lift suspension and applying for expedited trial – Balance of convenience – Public Contracts Regulations 2015, SI 2015/102, reg 96(1).
• R (on the application of Good Law Project Ltd and others) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (“Regulation 50”) [2021] EWHC 346 (Admin) – judicial review – Public procurement – Claimants challenging defendant’s failures to comply with procurement law and policy concerning publishing of contracts for goods and services awarded during COVID-19 pandemic
• Secretary of State for Transport v Arriva Rail East Midlands Ltd & ors (“Rail Franchising”) Court of Appeal [2019] EWCA Civ 2259 – abuse of process – breach of statutory duty – judicial review vs Part 7 and limitation periods – public procurement procedures – railway pensions litigation – private law claim for damages arising out of the decision of a public body or authority would not automatically be a public law act for JR limitation period
• Viasat UK Ltd v Ofcom & aor [2020] EWCA Civ 624 – Communications satellites – in-flight broadband – EU law – Commission procurement – equal treatment – transparency – unfair advantage – wireless telegraphy licences
• Alstom Transport UK Ltd v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2019] EWHC 3585 (TCC) – public procurement – automatic suspension – Adequacy of damages – American Cyanamid – public interest
• Stagecoach East Midlands Trains Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport & ors [2019] EWHC 2922 (TCC) – adjournment – public interest – railway pensions litigation
• Ocean Outdoor UK Ltd v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [2019] EWCA Civ 1642; [2020] P.T.S.R. 639 – Concession Contracts Regulations – advertising concession vs land lease – damages – loss of chance – public procurement procedures
• Mediterranean Hospital of Cyprus (MHOC) Ltd v Secretary of State for Defence [2018] EWHC 3289 (TCC) – limitation periods – public procurement procedure – strike-out and summary judgment
• AbbVie Ltd v NHS Commissioning Board (operating under the name of NHS England) [2019] EWHC 61 (TCC) – public procurement – Regulation 18 – equal treatment – £1billion Hepatitis C drug tender – whole market procurement – lawfulness of tender design – game theory
• Bombardier Transportation UK Ltd and others v London Underground Ltd (Siemens Mobility Ltd, interested party) (2018) 181 ConLR 119 – public procurement – automatic suspension – balance of convenience – Utilities Contracts Regulations 2006, SI 2006/6 – ‘deep tube’ train procurement
• MLS (Overseas) Ltd v Secretary of State for Defence [2017] EWHC 3389 (TCC) – Defence procurement regulations – tenders – lack of transparency – manifest error – exercise of discretion – ITT not clear on meaning of ‘fail’
• Edenred (Group UK) Limited v Her Majesty’s Treasury and others [2015] UKSC 45, Supreme Court (Public Procurement – outsourcing contract – Tax Free Childcare – material variation – not substantial – contract review clauses – Reg. 72 Public Contracts Regulations 2015); Court of Appeal: [2015] EWCA Civ 326; High Court: [2015] EWHC 90 (QB).
• Group M UK Ltd v Cabinet Office [2014] EWHC 3863 (TCC) (public procurement – costs) and [2014] EWHC 3659 (TCC) (public procurement – automatic suspension – urgency – media buying – American Cyanamid)
• NATS (Services) Ltd v Gatwick Airport Ltd [2014] EWHC 3728 (TCC) (public procurement – amendment – strike-out) and [2014] EWHC 3133 (TCC); (2014) 156 ConLR 177 (Public procurement – Utilities Contracts Regulations 2006, SI 2006/6 – Automatic suspension of procedure for award of contract)
• Indigo Service v Colchester Institute [2010] EWHC 3237 (QB): New Regulation 47G – lifting suspension of award of public contract –American Cyanamid principles

Philip Moser KC is joint Head of Monckton Chambers and a leading Silk in EU, competition and procurement law, described in the directories as having “a really, really broad understanding of EU law” and being “a beautiful advocate who is very erudite”. He has appeared before the CJEU in Luxembourg and the Commission in Brussels and in EU law cases at all levels of the English courts. He has given evidence to the House of Commons and the House of Lords EU select committee on EU law, is a former research associate and supervisor in European law at Cambridge University and edits The European Advocate. In recent years his practice has also embraced the consequences of ‘Brexit’. He advises private clients, corporations and the UK Government. Philip Moser KC has also written and lectured extensively on EU law subjects and Brexit.

Cases

Cases include:

• International Game Technology Plc v Gambling Commission King’s Bench Division (Technology & Construction Court) [2023] EWHC 1961 (TCC); [2024] P.T.S.R. 65; 209 Con. L.R. 225 – Economic operators; EU law; Locus standi; National Lottery; Public procurement procedures; Statutory licences; Sub-contractors
• Cases T-655&656/20  Symrise AG, Cruelty Free Europe & ors v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) General Court of the EU, judgments 22 November 2023: ECLI:EU:T:2023:736; ECLI:EU:T:2023:737  – REACH – Substance 2-ethylhexyl salicylate – Exclusive use for the manufacture of cosmetic products – Prohibition of animal testing – Error of law (acting for Cruelty Free Europe)
• Colley v Motor Insurance Bureau [2021] 1 W.L.R. 1889 – Direct effect – EU law – Exclusion of liability – Insurance policies – Motor Insurers’ Bureau – Uninsured drivers – State obligation to cover shortfall for breach in implementation – MIB liability
• Good Law Project v The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care & Abingdon [2022] EWHC 2468 (TCC) – procurement law – Covid contracts – antigen testing – rationality – apparent bias – nationality preference – equal treatment – State aid – none found – Good Law Project found not to have standing
• Viasat UK Ltd v Ofcom & aor [2020] EWCA Civ 624 – Communications satellites – in-flight broadband – EU law – Commission procurement – equal treatment – transparency – unfair advantage – wireless telegraphy licences
• Motor Insurance Bureau v Lewis [2019] EWCA Civ 909; [2019] 1 W.L.R. 6298 – EU law – direct effect – Motor Insurance Directives – accident on private land – claim against Motor Insurance Bureau – emanation of the state – liability of MIB to satisfy judgment against uninsured driver
• La Gaitana Farms SA and others v British Airways plc and others [2019] EWCA Civ 37; [2019] 1 W.L.R. 3793 – competition law – Article 102 – cartel damages – standalone claims – temporal scope – pre-Reg.1/2003 infringements – retrospectivity
• Vattenfall AB v Prysmian SpA [2018] EWHC 1694 (Ch) – Art. 101 – power cable cartel – jurisdiction – Follow-on and standalone damages – subsidiary companies – ‘anchor’ defendants – Brussels Regulation
• Emerald Supplies Limited and Others v British Airways Plc & Ors [2017] EWHC 2420 (Ch) – “Air Cargo” cartel – Art. 101 TFEU – overcharge on freight charges – follow-on damages claim – standalone claim – temporal scope
• Edenred (Group UK) Limited v Her Majesty’s Treasury and others [2015] UKSC 45, Supreme Court (Public Procurement – outsourcing contract – Tax Free Childcare – material variation – not substantial – contract review clauses – Reg. 72 Public Contracts Regulations 2015); Court of Appeal: [2015] EWCA Civ 326; High Court: [2015] EWHC 90 (QB).
• Delaney v Secretary of State for Transport [2015] EWCA Civ 172; [2015] 2 C.M.L.R. 30, Court of Appeal (Francovich damages against DfT – Uninsured Drivers Agreement – sufficiently serious breach – damages awarded – appeal dismissed)
• Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm); Banks – investment advice – duty of care – evaluating witness recollection
• Case C-239/12 P Abdulrahim v Council of the European Union European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber), judgment 28 May 2013;[2013] 3 C.M.L.R. 41; CFSP – Al-Qaida and Taliban sanctions list -Removal of the interested party – Continuing interest in bringing proceedings – for successful appellant
• Case C-409/04 R(Teleos) v Customs & Excise [2007] ECR I-7797: ECJ – VAT input tax – MTIC trading – liability of trader without knowledge (as junior counsel for traders in ECJ)
• Case C-229/05P PKK and KNK v Council [2007] ECR I-439, ECJ: appeal on admissibility from CFI – EU terrorist sanctions – challenge to decision to proscribe organisation – representative’s authority to initiate direct action (as lead counsel in ECJ)
• City of Sunderland v Thoburn [2001] EuLR 587; [2003] QB 151, DivCrt: ‘Metric Martyr’ litigation – metrication – European Community Act 1972 a ‘constitutional statute’ (as junior counsel for Sunderland)

Philip Moser KC, joint Head of Monckton Chambers, frequently acts in commercial matters, usually with an international element, either in national courts (cases for or against multinational companies), mediation (also as Mediator) or international arbitration. Cases include, e.g.: Gestmin v Credit Suisse (see per Leggatt J on value of oral evidence); acting for largest UK telecom company in arbitration; acting for Austrian media company in arbitration against Lloyd’s insurers; contractual disputes (see e.g. on severing provisos: Brand Studio [2016] 1 All ER (Comm) 1163); as arbitrator in a restaurant takeover dispute; Brussels Regulation and conflicts (see e.g. Maxter Catheters v Medicina [2016] 1 WLR 349). ‘Commercial Barrister of the Year 2015’ (Lawyer Monthly).

Cases

Recent cases include:

• Vauxhall Motors Ltd & Others v Denso Automotive UK Ltd & Others – Business and Property Courts – Jurisdiction – thermal system components – alleged cartel – damages claim – forum non conveniens – necessary and proper party – service out – Gateways
• Kompaktwerk GmbH v LivePerson Netherlands BV King’s Bench Division, Commercial Court [2024] EWHC 2278 (Comm) – commercial agents – Regs 7, 11 and 17 – compensation – sale of goods – software – amendment of case – whether renewable software licence “goods” or “rental”
• Braceurself Ltd v NHS England Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2023] EWCA Civ 837 – CPR – Cross-appeals; Permission to appeal; Dental services; Respondents’ notices; Rules of court; Split trials
• N v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc [2019] EWHC 1770 (Comm) – bank accounts – money laundering – money service operators – termination – national security
• Generics (UK) Ltd (trading as Mylan) v Warner-Lambert Company LLC & ors v Actavis Group PTC EHF & ors [2016] RPC 3 – European patents – Generic medicines – Groundless threats – Infringement – Pharmaceuticals – Swiss-type claims
• Brand Studio Ltd v St John Knits Inc [2016] 1 All ER (Comm) 1163 (severability of an unlawful proviso in a commercial agency contract to elect indemnity over compensation in favour of US principal).
• Maxter Catheters SAS v Medicina Ltd [2016] 1 WLR 349 (a dispute over French/English jurisdiction in a claim over a medical devices distribution agreement; French “action en référé” not “parallel proceedings”);
• Fern Computer Consultancy Ltd v Intergraph Cadworx & Analysis Solutions Inc [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 (conflict of laws in a Texan/UK dispute; whether software to be classified as “goods”);
• Norbrook Laboratories Ltd v Carr [2013] EWHC 476 (QB) (unincorporated associations; dispute between fisheries owners on the River Eden);
• Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm) (alleged mis-selling of investments to to a high net worth Portuguese client);

Philip Moser KC was nominated as ‘Tax Silk of the Year’ for 2017 by Legal 500. He is frequently instructed in indirect tax matters, mainly by HMRC. This includes a particular expertise in MTIC fraud, in which he did the first full post-Kittel trial (Calltel) and the subsequent test cases on the Kittel test (Mobilx; Blue Sphere Global; Calltel).

Cases

Cases include:

• Colaingrove Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) [2024] UKFTT 490 (TC) – VAT ; Adequacy of damages; Discretion; availability and rate of interest on repayments from HMRC
• R. (on the application of JJ Management LLP) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners Court of Appeal: [2020] EWCA Civ 784; [2021] Q.B. 257; Administrative Court: [2019] EWHC 2006 (Admin); [2020] 2 W.L.R. 195; [2019] S.T.C. 1772 – tax enquiries – access to justice – double taxation – HMRC powers – ultra vires
• Emblaze Mobility Solutions Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2018] UKUT 373 (TCC); [2019] S.T.C. 787 – error of law – Interest – Interest rates – Reasonableness – Reduction – Repayments – VAT
• British-American Tobacco (Holdings) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners – [2017] SFTD 550  Excise duties – Penalty for facilitating smuggling –hand rolling tobacco – whether criminal charge – tribunal appeal jurisdiction: full or Wednesbury review – Burden of proof – Whether penalty notice lawful – Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979 – Human Rights Act – TFEU, art 30.
• Case C‑131/13 Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Schoenimport „Italmoda“ ariano Previti, European Court of Justice, judgment 18 December 2014, VAT fraud – exemption of intra-Community supply
• Emblaze v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 679 (TC); [2014] S.F.T.D. 1133; [2014] S.T.I. 2667; interest on FTT decisions – s.84(8) VATA – post-2009 cases -Littlewoods – adequate indemnity
• Case C-300/12 Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Mitte v Ibero Tours GmbH European Court of Justice, judgment 16 January 2014; Travel agents – VAT – discounts – intermediaries – effect of ECJ Elida Gibbs decision
• Gateshead Talmudical College v HMRC [2010] UKFTT 244 (TC): Capital goods – Colleges – leaseback
• Mobilx; Blue Sphere Global; Calltel & aor v HMRC [2010] EWCA Civ 517; [2010] S.T.C. 1436; [2010] Lloyd’s Rep. F.C. 445: Court of Appeal – MTIC fraud – test cases on meaning of “connection” and “knowledge” and application of ECJ’s Kittel test
• Olympia Technology v HMRC [2010] UKFTT 45 (TC): MTIC fraud – constructive knowledge from surrounding circumstances in some transactions but not all
• Livewire Telecom v HMRC; Olympia v HMRC [2009] EWHC 15 (Ch); [2009] STC 643: MTIC fraud – “Knew or should have known” – dishonesty – “naïve” trader and objective knowledge
• Calltel v HMRC [2008] EWHC 2107 (Ch); [2008] STC 3246: Security for costs in VAT appeals to High Court

Having appeared in the leading cases of Lonsdale and Ingmar, Philip is regularly instructed by agents and principals.

Cases

Cases include:

• Kompaktwerk GmbH v LivePerson Netherlands BV King’s Bench Division, Commercial Court [2024] EWHC 2278 (Comm) – commercial agents – Regs 7, 11 and 17 – compensation – sale of goods – software – amendment of case – whether renewable software licence “goods” or “rental”
• Fern Computer Consultancy Ltd v Intergraph Cadworx & Analysis Solutions Inc [2014] EWHC 2908 (Ch); Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction – Commercial agent – whether claim satisfying CPR Pt 6 – whether ‘software’ is ‘goods’ – meaning of ‘secondary activity’ – Reg. 17 compensation
• Accentuate Limited v Asigra Inc [2009] EWHC 2655 (QB): foreign arbitration and law clause in agency contract – award contrary to mandatory EU law rights unenforceable by analogy with Ingmar
• Lonsdale v Howard & Hallam [2007] UKHL 32; [2007] 1 WLR 2055, House of Lords – commercial agents – test case re assessment of Reg. 17 compensation (sole counsel for the agent in House of Lords)
• Smith & ors v Howard & Hallam [2006] EuLR 578, QBD: agents re-engaged by purchaser of business after termination – Reg. 17 compensation (counsel for the agents)
• Ingmar v Eaton Leonard [2001] EuLR 755, QBD: Commercial Agents Regulations – assessment of Reg. 17 compensation for termination (counsel for the principal)
• Hackett v Advanced Medical Computer Systems Ltd [1999] CLC 160, Merc. Crt.: Commercial Agents Regulations –  notice of agents’ claim need not be in particular form (counsel for the principal)

Philip has dealt with numerous private international law (Conflict of Law) cases in courts in England and Germany as well as the ECJ. Since acting as junior counsel in Webb v Webb [1994] ECR I-1717, ECJ (Brussels Convention – jurisdiction over English Trust property in France lies in England) Philip has handled cases both under the Brussels and Lugano Conventions, now the Jurisdiction Regulations, as well as English choice of law rules.

Cases

Cases include:

• Vauxhall Motors Ltd & Others v Denso Automotive UK Ltd & Others – Business and Property Courts – Jurisdiction – thermal system components – alleged cartel – damages claim – forum non conveniens – necessary and proper party – service out – Gateways
• International Game Technology plc v Gambling Commission King’s Bench Division (Technology & Construction Court)  Judgment: [2023] EWHC 1961 (TCC); [2024] P.T.S.R. 65; 209 Con. L.R. 225 – Economic operators; Whether US operator has locus standi in English proceedings; National Lottery; Public procurement procedures; Statutory licences; Sub-contractors
• Vattenfall AB v Prysmian SpA [2018] EWHC 1694 (Ch) – Art. 101 – power cable cartel – jurisdiction – Follow-on and standalone damages – subsidiary companies – ‘anchor’ defendants – Brussels Regulation
• Fern Computer Consultancy Ltd v Intergraph Cadworx & Analysis Solutions Inc [2014] EWHC 2908 (Ch); Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction – Commercial agent – whether claim satisfying CPR Pt 6 – whether ‘software’ is ‘goods’ – meaning of ‘secondary activity’ – Reg. 17 compensation
• Accentuate Limited v Asigra Inc [2009] EWHC 2655 (QB): successfully argued for UK jurisdiction where foreign arbitration award contrary to mandatory EU law rights
• Cronos v Palatin & ors [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Law Reports 489: an Austrian/English conflict over trust property
• Cadle Co v Hearley [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 143: English/US garnishee orders and limitation

Philip has wide forensic and advisory experience of professional negligence cases, principally those involving solicitors, especially where there are EU law or cross-border elements. Reported cases include Feakins v Burstow [2006] PNLR 6, QBD: solicitors’ negligence case arising out of ECJ litigation – export of sheep – pre-paid export refunds – loss of a chance (lead counsel for solicitors).

Cases

Cases include:

• Vattenfall AB v Prysmian SpA [2018] EWHC 1694 (Ch) – Art. 101 – power cable cartel – jurisdiction – Follow-on and standalone damages – subsidiary companies – ‘anchor’ defendants – Brussels Regulation
• Fern Computer Consultancy Ltd v Intergraph Cadworx & Analysis Solutions Inc [2014] EWHC 2908 (Ch); Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction – Commercial agent – whether claim satisfying CPR Pt 6 – whether ‘software’ is ‘goods’ – meaning of ‘secondary activity’ – Reg. 17 compensation
• Accentuate Limited v Asigra Inc [2009] EWHC 2655 (QB): successfully argued for UK jurisdiction where foreign arbitration award contrary to mandatory EU law rights
• Cronos v Palatin & ors [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Law Reports 489: an Austrian/English conflict over trust property
• Cadle Co v Hearley [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 143: English/US garnishee orders and limitation

Competition Law: “He is also very strong at being the mediator of group.” “He really sorts things through from his perspective for the client, and he is a masterful diplomat.” “Philip Moser is very clever and engaged, and he is impressive when looking at things from a commercial perspective.” – Chambers UK, 2024

European Law: “Philip is an extremely charming, polite, and courteous advocate, who is great at bringing the court onto his side.” “Philip is a pleasure to work with and extremely talented.”– Chambers UK, 2024

Group Litigation: “Philip is very understated but incredibly effective. He reads the room very well so he knows which points to push and he knows where he needs to back off.” – Chambers UK, 2024

Public Procurement (ranked as a Star Individual): “He is an excellent silk who is bright, innovative and forensically astute.” “An excellent strategist, who is very well respected by clients.” – Chambers UK, 2024

Tax: Indirect Tax: “Clients love to use him.” “His advice is flawless.” – Chambers UK, 2024

Leading silk in Competition: “Philip reads the room very well, is very persuasive and authoritative.“- Legal 500, 2024

Leading silk in EU Law: “An absolute expert on EU law. He explains hugely complex and labyrinthine law persuasively and with clarity.” – Legal 500, 2024

Leading silk in Public Procurement: “An erudite silk.” – Legal 500, 2024

Leading silk in Tax: VAT and Excise: “Philip has a gravitas that commands the respect of the court room and opponents alike. He really comes into his own when you need somebody to manage appellate litigation and can make the legally unattractive really quite compelling.”  – Legal 500, 2024

Competition Law: “Philip is a leader in diplomacy. The way he conducted himself with the co-defendants as a mediator and diplomat was impressive.” – Chambers UK and Chambers Global, 2023

European Law: “He has been excellent with the client and is a great advocate on top of his game.”– Chambers UK, 2023

Group Litigation: “Philip has a very attractive and understated advocacy style which appeals to judges.” “He is very reassuring and extremely good in difficult and complex situations.” – Chambers UK, 2023

Public Procurement (ranked as a Star Individual): “An extremely charming advocate, who has the trust and confidence of the courts.” “A fine advocate who is good strategically and impresses with his use of language.” “Philip is a very experienced practitioner, who is calm, user-friendly and well informed.” – Chambers UK, 2023

Tax: Indirect Tax: “Incredibly articulate and very good to work with.” – Chambers UK, 2023

Leading silk in Competition: “An outstanding case leader, Philip is a strong competition expert who is prepared to take a clear view on the merits of a case and fight hard to see it through. He is heavily invested in the detail of his cases even when it involves complex subject matter. A devastating cross-examiner, he is both ruthless and forensic.“- Legal 500, 2023

Leading silk in EU Law: “Philip is extremely strong when it comes to analysing unique legal problems, particularly in the arena of subsidy control and procurement and in relation to the interpretation of retained EU law post-Brexit. He provides soundly-reasoned, precise and robust.” – Legal 500, 2023

Leading silk in Public Procurement: “Philip is a class act and a top silk operating in the public procurement litigation field.” – Legal 500, 2023

Leading silk in Tax: corporate and VAT: “Philip’s strength is his court presence; he is a master at appellate level and his clients are always impressed by the fact that he is a true silk.”  – Legal 500, 2023

Recommended in Government Contracts, Who’s Who Legal Global Guide 2022

“Philip Moser QC is a highly experienced silk who is highlighted for his expertise in domestic and international trade law, with a particular focus on EU law.” – Government Contracts, Who’s Who Legal UK Bar 2022

Recommended in Competition, Who’s Who Legal UK Bar 2022

Competition Law: “He really takes the time to understand all the important legal arguments, enabling the client to be put in the best position.” “He is unflappable and he has a lightness of touch in his presentation to court. He is reassuring and puts you at ease with your case.” “He is brilliant: a razor-sharp intellect, and he is a pleasure to work with.” – Chambers UK and Chambers Global, 2022

European Law: “He thinks about things very deeply and knows how to get the court on his side.” “At the top of his game.” – Chambers UK, 2022

Public Procurement (ranked as a Star Individual): “Moser is first class” and “extremely clear in his advice.” “He is sharp-witted and knows how to engage with judges and identify the key issues in a case.” – Chambers UK, 2022

Tax: Indirect Tax: “A lawyer with a very good spread of experience, who is good both in terms of his style of speech and impressive approach.” – Chambers UK, 2022

Leading silk in Competition: “Very good at cutting through complex issues.“- Legal 500, 2022

Leading silk in EU Law: “He has an exceptional knowledge of a highly complex area of European constitutional law.” – Legal 500, 2022

Leading silk in Public Procurement: “Philip is outstanding and very easy to work with. Probably the number one procurement disputes barrister at the moment.” – Legal 500, 2022

Leading silk in Tax: corporate and VAT  – Legal 500, 2022

“Philip Moser QC is a prominent silk at the bar with significant experience of and expertise in public procurement law before EU and UK courts.” – Government Contracts, Who’s Who Legal 2021

Competition Law: “He is very bright and picks up on situations and case arguments very quickly.” “He has a real depth of knowledge and is a really good advocate.” – Chambers UK and Chambers Global, 2021

European Law: “A good generalist EU lawyer.” – Chambers UK, 2021

Public Procurement: “An impressive advocate and a great strategist who ideal for dense, fast-moving cases.” “He’s a good leader with a sound commercial head on his shoulders, who pays attention to detail and is thoroughly pragmatic.” – Chambers UK, 2021

Tax: Indirect Tax: “He is statesmanlike in the way he presents. The way he conducts himself in court is exemplary.” – Chambers UK, 2021

Leading silk in Competition: “his advocacy skills are very strong, he can really “read” a judge resulting in effective, targeted submissions and very effective advocacy. He is very experienced and knowledgeable in the field of EU law” – Legal 500, 2021

Leading silk in EU Law: ‘‘He grasps technical legal concepts easily and translates them for client and judge.’’ – Legal 500, 2021

Leading silk in Public Procurement: ‘‘Excellent advocate and really knows his stuff. Seen currently as the leading counsel in this area. His input helped us achieve an outstanding result.’’ – Legal 500, 2021

Leading silk in Tax: corporate and VAT: ‘‘He is extremely knowledgeable.’’ – Legal 500, 2021

“The “excellent” Philip Moser QC is celebrated by sources as “a leading procurement silk” with “extensive experience in this field” – Government Contracts, Who’s Who Legal UK Bar 2020

Competition Law: “Sensitive to the challenges of client-facing work. He can be flexible and he understands different perspectives very quickly.” – Chambers UK and Chambers Global, 2020

European Law: “He has an easy charm and is very effective.” – Chambers UK, 2020

Public Procurement: “He is a very impressive barrister with a very detailed knowledge of law and a nice sense of the commercial realities. He is an absolute pleasure to work with.” “He is extremely knowledgeable and a true expert in this area.” “Philip is a tremendous advocate, very considered and persuasive.” – Chambers UK, 2020

Tax: Indirect Tax: “Has a really good knowledge of EU law and its application and is all over the case law.” – Chambers UK, 2020

Leading silk in Competition: ‘‘Very knowledgeable.’’ – Legal 500, 2020

Leading silk in EU Law: ‘‘He grasps technical legal concepts easily and translates them for client and judge.’’ – Legal 500, 2020

Leading silk in Public Procurement: ‘‘An extremely impressive silk.’’ – Legal 500, 2020

Leading silk in Tax: corporate and VAT: ‘‘He is extremely knowledgeable.’’ – Legal 500, 2020

“Recognised for his superb practice and is considered a leading lawyer in the public procurement space. One source notes that “many would go straight to Philip” for government contracts matters” – Government Contracts, Who’s Who Legal UK Bar 2019

Competition Law: “He is a beautiful advocate who is very erudite.” – Chambers UK, 2019

European Law: “Moser is a fantastic advocate who is really good on his feet and very good technically.” – Chambers UK, 2019

Public Procurement: “Has vast experience of procurement challenges and provides excellent strategic advice to clients. He has a very relaxed style and is excellent with clients.” – Chambers UK, 2019

Tax: Indirect Tax: “A very impressive advocate. He is responsive to client needs and has an excellent grasp of several specialist legal areas.” “Very easy to work with.” – Chambers UK, 2019 

Leading silk in Competition: ‘‘Collaborative approach; he identifies the key issues early and works out how best to deal with them.’’ – Legal 500, 2018

Leading silk in EU Law: ‘‘Excellent manner with clients, a very sharp mind and always makes himself available to support as necessary.’’ – Legal 500, 2018

Leading silk in Public Procurement: ‘‘An excellent tactician, he is a leading practitioners when it comes to procurement disputes.’’ – Legal 500, 2018

Leading silk in Tax: corporate and VAT: ‘‘He has an excellent manner with clients, a very sharp mind.’’ – Legal 500, 2018

European Law: “He is very good at explaining the law in a client-friendly way.” “A charming and very persuasive advocate.” – Chambers UK, 2018

Public Procurement: “The breadth of his experience in procurement matters means that he is able to turn his hand to anything. He is extremely client-friendly and has a very relaxed and comforting style.” – Chambers UK, 2018

Tax: Indirect Tax: “Absolutely charming and a very impressive advocate.” – Chambers UK, 2018   

Leading silk in Competition: ‘‘An authoritative advocate with an easy manner and good judgement.’’ – Legal 500, 2017

Leading silk in EU Law: ‘‘He is a great strategist with a real intellectual rigour.’’ – Legal 500, 2017

Leading silk in Public Procurement: ‘‘A great strategist, with a second-to-none knowledge of complex regulatory matters.’’ – Legal 500, 2017

Leading silk in Tax: corporate and VAT: ‘‘He’s mastered his subject matter and he knows how to communicate in a clear fashion.’’ – Legal 500, 2017

European Law: “Philip is a hugely impressive and knowledgeable advocate who wins the confidence of judges. He’s both a very seasoned court performer and someone who is good at negotiation and mediation situations.” – Chambers UK, 2017

Public Procurement: “He’s exceptional. Judges and clients all think really highly of him, and he’s a very persuasive advocate and a very formidable opponent.” “A go-to silk whose advice is always focused and creative. Clients always feel they are in safe hands with him.” – Chambers UK, 2017

Tax: Indirect Tax: “He gives practical, tactical advice.” “He is an excellent advocate before the CJEU and very able.” – Chambers UK, 2017

Leading silk in EU and Competition: “He is strategically very sharp and adds gravitas.” – Legal 500, 2016

Leading silk in Public Procurement:  “Formidable intellect combined with exemplary client handling skills.” – Legal 500, 2016

Leading silk in Tax: VAT:  “He represents HMRC in MTIC cases before the domestic and European courts.” – Legal 500, 2016

Government Contracts: The “excellent” Philip Moser QC is described as “a very fine advocate” with “significant expertise in procurement litigation.”– WHO’S WHO LEGAL (WWL) UK BAR 2016 

European Law: “He has a fantastic manner with clients. He is formidable and authoritative as an advocate.” – Chambers UK, 2016

Public Procurement: “He was able to spot lines of attack that we had not appreciated. When he seizes on a point he has a talent for presenting it in a completely unarguable form.” – Chambers UK, 2016

Tax: Indirect Tax: “He has a fantastic manner with clients. He is formidable and authoritative as an advocate.” – Chambers UK, 2016

Leading Silk in EU and Competition Law: ”In-depth knowledge of black-letter EU sanctions law.” Legal 500, 2015 

Leading Silk in Public Procurement Law: ”His advocacy is excellent and he is strategically very sharp.” Legal 500, 2015 

European Law: “Very impressive.” “He’s very responsive and proved to be a calming presence at a very difficult time.” – Chambers UK, 2015

Public Procurement: “He is user-friendly and has achieved great results for our clients.” – Chambers UK, 2015

Tax: Indirect Tax:  “He has a really, really broad understanding of EU law.” – Chambers UK, 2015

“Recommended for his expertise in EU sanctions cases.” Philip Moser QC is listed as a leading Silk in EU & Competition Law – Legal 500, 2014

“He gets to the heart of an issue and sticks to his guns.” Philip is ranked as a leading Silk in Procurement Law – Legal 500, 2014

“Unhesitatingly recommended” by sources as a top counsel for European matters. He is singled out for his work in ground-breaking EU sanctions cases, but has also been instructed by the UK government on a number of long-running issues such as those concerning sugar levies.“Very quick at working out what is needed, he offers advice that is always accurate.” “He’s a skilled advocate with an astute legal mind.” Under European Law. Chambers UK, 2014

Under Public Procurement Law: “He is very approachable and has a very sharp analytical mind. You can instruct him at relatively short notice and he’ll know the issue inside out.”Chambers UK, 2014

Under Tax: Indirect Tax: “He’s very bright, very thorough and good with the client.”Chambers UK, 2014

Philip Moser QC is ranked in band 5 for Commercial Dispute Resolution Law. “He has a fantastic bedside manner with clients, and is formidable and authoritative as an advocate.” Chambers UK, 2014

“Philip Moser QC, who exhibits ‘excellent understanding of public sector requirements’ and is ‘an absolute joy to work with’.” Is recommended as a leading Silk. Legal 500, 2013

Under EU & Competition Law, Philip Moser QC is listed as a leading Silk. Legal 500, 2013

Tax: Indirect Tax: He is “Brilliant at analysing a case, he proves to be “formidable and very authoritative” once in court.” Chambers UK, 2013

Competition / European Law: “Philip Moser QC is “a very accomplished advocate who is able to put across extremely sophisticated arguments with clarity and precision.” He is an experienced EU law practitioner, and offers noted expertise in legal issues surrounding sanctions. He recently acted in a matter concerning the European Investment Bank and the EU Community Guarantee which required a redrafting of the EU Guarantee Decision.” Chambers UK, 2013

Commercial Dispute Resolution: “Instructing solicitors also rave about Philip Moser QC of Monckton Chambers, whose “technical and forensic analysis of the issues in a case is always spot-on.” Solicitors also characterise him as “formidable and highly authoritative as an advocate.””Chambers UK, 2013

Phillip Moser QC is recommended as a new silk in EU and Competition Law. Legal 500, 2012

Under Comp/EU: European Law “Philip Moser is another highly regarded junior at the set. His recent work includes acting for Defra/UK government in a case concerning the calculation of the sugar levy. Moser is well respected alongside” – Chambers UK, 2012

Procurement – “Philip Moser has been involved in a large number of procurement cases in the past year, acting for contracting authorities and private contractors on a range of both litigation and advisory matters. He is trusted by clients as a result of his “pragmatic, user-friendly and solution-oriented approach to procurement issues.”” – Chambers UK, 2012

Tax – ““Very effective advocate” Philip Moser has been involved in various missing trader intra-community (MTIC) cases, including Goldex International v HMRC; in all of these he has represented the Revenue. He has an extensive practice in the niche area of VAT fraud.” – Chambers UK, 2012

“Philip Moser has built an enviable EU law practice and has handled a lot of work for HMRC. Highlights for him include acting in Calltel, Mobilx & Bluesphere v HMRC, a Court of Appeal dispute concerning missing trader intra-community fraud in the UK.” Competition/European Law – Chambers UK, 2011

Recommended in Tax: Indirect Tax by Chambers UK, 2011. “Philip Moser is a “very good, experienced advocate,” say sources. He advises on EU law cases and has niche expertise in VAT carousel fraud. Both individuals and public and private companies count amongst his clients.”

Education: Robinson College, Cambridge; Vienna University; MA(Cantab); Inns of Court School of Law; Duke of Edinburgh Scholarship.

Languages: German (bilingual); French (working knowledge).

Professional Background: Research Associate, Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS), University of Cambridge 1996-1998; Supervisor in EC Law, Robinson College, Cambridge 1995-97; Editorial Board, European Law Reports 1999-; Editor, The European Advocate 2000-; Bar Council Representative to the Federation of European Bars 2001-2007; accredited as Mediator (College of Law); elected UK Council Member for the International Criminal Bar 2003-2007; Chairman, ICB Election & Constitution Committees, 2003-2007; the current Chairman of the Bar European Group, a specialist bar association of the Bar of England and Wales, 2020.

Committees: Bar European Group Committee 1998-; International Relations Committee of the Bar Council 2000-; Bar Liaison Committee, Inner Temple, 2003-; UKAEL Committee, 2005-.

Memberships: European Law Institute, 2012; Bar European Group; Europäische Anwaltsvereinigung (DACH); Association of German-Speaking Lawyers; UKAEL; European Circuit; South-Eastern Circuit; PNBA.