Philip Moser QC

Call 1992 || 2016 (Northern Ireland) | Silk 2012
Education
MA (Cantab), ADR Accredited Mediator
Contact

+44 (0)20 7405 7211

Send email

Philip Moser QC, joint Head of Chambers, is ranked as a Leading Silk in EU & Competition Law, Procurement Law and Indirect Tax by Legal 500 and Chambers UK. He has appeared in every division of the High Court and at every level of the UK and EU Courts. His practice deals with all aspects of domestic and international trade law, including the intersection of domestic and EU law, now encompassing the implications of Brexit.

‘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.

The ‘excellent’ Philip Moser QC is ‘a very fine advocate’ with ‘significant expertise in procurement litigation’ – Who’s Who Legal, 2016.

‘He’s exceptional. Judges and clients all think really highly of him, and he’s a very persuasive advocate and a very formidable opponent.’ – Chambers UK, 2017.

‘A great strategist, with a second-to-none knowledge of complex regulatory matters.’ – Legal 500, 2017.

Philip regularly handles cases in the UK appellate courts and at the CJEU. He also acts as a Mediator and is listed as an LCIA Arbitrator. A former supervisor in EC Law at Robinson College, Cambridge, Philip also edits the European Advocate and publishes on issues of EU law.

‘A go-to silk whose advice is always focused and creative. Clients always feel they are in safe hands with him.’ – Chambers UK, 2017.

Philip Moser QC is also a member of the Northern Ireland Bar.

  • Recent / Major Cases
    • 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’
    • Vattenfall & ors v Prysmian & ors (Power Cable Cartel) (Ch Div), ongoing; – Article 101 TFEU – Power Cable Cartel – Follow-on and standalone damages – jurisdiction – Recast Brussels Regulation
    • 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) – fast track case – dominant position – vets – injunction – damages – market for TB testing
    • Case T-332/15 Ocean Capital Administration and Others v Council (pending), General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Common Foreign and Security Policy – Iran sanctions – relisting of 32 “IRISL companies” – application for annulment)
    • 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)
    • Case T 127/09 RENV  Abdulrahim v Council and Commission, General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 14 January 2015, ECLI:EU:T:2015:4 (Common Foreign and Security Policy – sanctions – decision annulled – lack of evidence)
    • 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
    • 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)
    • 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 –Whether judge erring – no
    • 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
    • Delaney v Secretary of State for Transport [2014] EWHC 1785 (QB); [2014] R.T.R. 25; [2014] 3 C.M.L.R. 32; [2014] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 575; [2014] P.I.Q.R. P22; (2014) 164(7610) N.L.J. 18; Motor insurance – Rights of third parties against insurers – Francovich damages vs DoT – Directive 84/5 – Directive 72/166/EEC – Directive 90/232/EEC
    • 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
    • Case T-66/14 Bredenkamp & ors v Commission & Council, pending, action for damages for loss suffered due to wrongful imposition of EU sanctions
    • Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm); Banks – investment advice – duty of care – evaluating witness recollection
    • Recall Support Services Ltd v Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport [2013] EWHC 3091 (Ch); Telecommunications – Mobile telephone networks – GSM Gateway – Francovich damages – breach of EU law(appeal case pending in Court of Appeal).
    • Ayadi v European Commission (C-183/12 P) European Court of Justice, judgment 6 June 2013; CFSP – Al-Qaida and Taliban sanctions list -Removal of the interested party – Continuing interest in bringing proceedings
    • 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
    • Norbrook Laboratories Ltd v Carr [2013] EWHC 476 (QB); Unincorporated association – misconduct – damages – delivery up of documents – costs
    • Case C‑563/11 Forvards V SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber), order 28 February 2013; VAT – Input tax -refusal to deduction on basis issuer of invoice relating to those services, or one of his suppliers, acted improperly – EC Council Directive 2006/112, art 273
    • Honda Motors (Europe) Limited v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, First-tier Tax Tribunal, Decision 29 January 2013; Customs – CCC – customs duty classification – Combined Nomenclature – agricultural tractors – ATVs – effect of ECJ Kawasaki decision
    • Case C‑285/11 Bonik EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’, European Court of Justice, judgment 6 December 2012; VAT – Input tax -refusal to deduction on basis issuer of invoice relating to those services, or one of his suppliers, acted improperly – EC Council Directive 2006/112, art 273
    • NG International Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2012] UKUT 259 (TCC); [2013] S.T.C. 1; [2012] B.V.C. 1792; [2012] S.T.I. 2459; VAT – Input tax – MTIC fraud – meaning of ‘should have known’ limb ofKittel test
    • Joined Cases C-113/10, C-147/10 and C-234/10 Zuckerfabrik Jülich AG v Hauptzollamt Aachen; British Sugar plc v Rural Payments Agency & ors, European Court of Justice, judgment 27 September 2012; Common agricultural policy – sugar and isoglucose – calculation of production levies – retroactive effect of legislation – exchange rate – interest
    • Joined Cases C‑80/11 and C‑142/11 Mahagében kft & Dávid v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága, European Court of Justice, judgment 21 June 2012; [2012] S.T.C. 1934; [2013] C.E.C. 306; [2012] S.T.I. 2733; VAT – Input tax -refusal to deduction on basis issuer of invoice relating to those services, or one of his suppliers, acted improperly – EC Council Directive 2006/112, art 273
    • Emblaze Mobility Solutions Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2012] B.V.C. 174; [2012] S.T.I. 1600; [2012] S.T.I. 3011, (Ch Div); Corporation tax – Equitable set-off – Input tax – Interest – PAYE – VAT
    • Case T-306/10 Yusef v European Commission, GCEU, pending; UN sanctions; whether post-Kadi EU regime lawful; whether applicant can bring action for failure to act
    • Joined cases C-113/10, C-147/10 and C-234/10 British Sugar & ors, ECJ, judgment, 27 September 2012; Sugar levy; annulled regulation; legality of new regulation; repayment of sums wrongly levied
    • Case T-145/09 Bredenkamp and Others v Commission (GCEU, Order, 6 September 2012); Zimbabwe sanctions; lack of reasons; challenge; listing revoked; no continuing interest
    • HMRC v Cozens [2012] STC 420 (ChD) Civil procedure – Customs – Freezing injunctions – Dissipation of assets – Duty of disclosure – Fraudulent evasion of duty
    • Gateshead Talmudical College v HMRC [2011] STC 1593 (Upper Tribunal) Capital Goods Scheme – Input/output tax – Leases – Taxable supplies by religious college
    • Indigo Service v Colchester Institute [2011] EuLR 384 (QB): First Regulation 47G application – lifting suspension of award of public contract – American Cyanamid principles
    • Norbrook Laboratories Ltd & aor v Carr & aor [2011] CP Rep 7: Court of Appeal – civil procedure – costs – unincorporated associations
    • Mobilx & ors v HMRC [2010] STC 1436: Court of Appeal – MTIC fraud – test cases on ECJ “Kittel test” – knowledge of connection with VAT fraud
    • Accentuate Ltd v Asigra [2010] 2 All ER (Comm) 738 (QBD); Commercial agency; arbitration; UK jurisdiction where foreign proceedings contrary to EU mandatory rights
    • PKK v Council [2008] ECR II-45: CFI – EU terrorism list – freezing of funds – annulment of Council decision for lack of reasons
    • Calltel & Opto v HMRC [2008]: ChD – VAT appeal – test case on security for costs
    • Lonsdale v Howard & Hallam [2007] UKHL 32: House of Lords – commercial agents – test case re assessment of Reg. 17 compensation
    • PKK and KNK v European Council [2007] ECR I-439: ECJ – appeal from CFI – EU terrorist list – challenge to decision to proscribe organisation – standing
    • City of Sunderland v Thoburn [2003] QB 151 (Div Crt): ‘Metric Martyr’ litigation – metrication – European Community Act 1972 a ‘constitutional statute’
  • European Law

    Philip has appeared before the ECJ in Luxembourg and the Commission in Brussels and in EU law cases at all levels of the English courts, as well as in appeals before the VAT and Duties Tribunal. He has also given evidence to the House of Lords EU select committee. Philip has particular expertise in EU sanctions, having dealt with respectively: terrorist; Zimbabwe; Burma, and Iran sanctions cases. Cases include:

    • Case T-332/15 Ocean Capital Administration and Others v Council (pending), General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Common Foreign and Security Policy – Iran sanctions – relisting of 32 “IRISL companies” – application for annulment)
    • 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)
    • Case T 127/09 RENV  Abdulrahim v Council and Commission, General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 14 January 2015, ECLI:EU:T:2015:4 (Common Foreign and Security Policy – sanctions – decision annulled – lack of evidence)
    • 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
    • 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 –Whether judge erring – no
    • Delaney v Secretary of State for Transport [2014] EWHC 1785 (QB); [2014] R.T.R. 25; [2014] 3 C.M.L.R. 32; [2014] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 575; [2014] P.I.Q.R. P22; (2014) 164(7610) N.L.J. 18; Motor insurance – Rights of third parties against insurers – Francovich damages vs DoT – Directive 84/5 – Directive 72/166/EEC – Directive 90/232/EEC
    • Case T-306/10 Yusef v European Commission, GCEU, judgment 21 March 2014; UN sanctions – Al Qaida list – Freezing of a person’s funds – Commission’s refusal to de-list – Action for failure to act – Fundamental rights – Right to be heard, right to effective judicial review and right to property
    • 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
    • Case T-66/14 Bredenkamp & ors v Commission & Council, pending, action for damages for loss suffered due to wrongful imposition of EU sanctions
    • Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm); Banks – investment advice – duty of care – evaluating witness recollection
    • Recall Support Services Ltd v Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport [2013] EWHC 3091 (Ch); Telecommunications – Mobile telephone networks – GSM Gateway – Francovich damages – breach of EU law(appeal case pending in Court of Appeal).
    • C-183/12 P Ayadi v European Commission European Court of Justice, judgment 6 June 2013; CFSP – Al-Qaida and Taliban sanctions list -Removal of the interested party – Continuing interest in bringing proceedings
    • 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
    • Case C‑563/11 Forvards V SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber), order 28 February 2013; VAT – Input tax -refusal to deduction on basis issuer of invoice relating to those services, or one of his suppliers, acted improperly – EC Council Directive 2006/112, art 273
    • Honda Motors (Europe) Limited v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, First-tier Tax Tribunal, Decision 29 January 2013; Customs – CCC – customs duty classification – Combined Nomenclature – agricultural tractors – ATVs – effect of ECJ Kawasaki decision
    • Case C‑285/11 Bonik EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’, European Court of Justice, judgment 6 December 2012; VAT – Input tax -refusal to deduction on basis issuer of invoice relating to those services, or one of his suppliers, acted improperly – EC Council Directive 2006/112, art 273
    • Joined Cases C-113/10, C-147/10 and C-234/10 Zuckerfabrik Jülich AG v Hauptzollamt Aachen; British Sugar plc v Rural Payments Agency & ors, European Court of Justice, judgment 27 September 2012; Common agricultural policy – sugar and isoglucose – calculation of production levies – retroactive effect of legislation – exchange rate – interest
    • Joined Cases C‑80/11 and C‑142/11 Mahagében kft & Dávid v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága, European Court of Justice, judgment 21 June 2012; [2012] S.T.C. 1934; [2013] C.E.C. 306; [2012] S.T.I. 2733; VAT – Input tax -refusal to deduction on basis issuer of invoice relating to those services, or one of his suppliers, acted improperly – EC Council Directive 2006/112, art 273
    • Case T-145/09 Bredenkamp and Others v Commission (GCEU, Order, 6 September 2012); Zimbabwe sanctions; lack of reasons; challenge; listing revoked; no continuing interest
    • Case T-229/02 PKK v Council [2008] ECR II-45: CFI – EU terrorist sanctions – annulment of Council decision for lack of reasons (lead counsel for applicant)
    • 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)
    • Case T-02/04 Korkmaz & Ors v Commission [2006] (Order, 30 March 2006), CFI: EU Courts – access to justice in environmental/Human Rights matters (as lead counsel for applicants)
    • R v Joy and Bossom [2005] EuLR 765; [2006] EuLR 1131, CA: under-10 metre fishing vessels – criminal prosecution – proportionality of DEFRA licensing scheme under CFP (as counsel for Bossom)
    • 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)
  • Procurement Law

    Philip Moser QC is ranked as a 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 first PCR 2006, Reg.47G order to lift a suspension on contract-making and most recently he was leading counsel in Edenred, the first Supreme Court case on variation of public contracts and the first case decided under PCR 2015.

    Recent or ongoing cases include:

    • 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
    • R on the Application of Redwood Health Limited v NHS PASA [2009] EWHC 2511 (Admin): Successfully resisting judicial review proceedings – Case C-454/06 pressetext – “essential term” and “new award”
    • Amaryllis Ltd v HM Treasury (No.2) [2009] EWHC 1666 (TCC); [2010] EuLR 152: Confidentiality – disclosure – public interest immunity
    • Amaryllis Ltd v HM Treasury [2009] EWHC 962 (TCC), [2010] EuLR 85: Regulation 47 – limitation – proper notice and “prompt”
  • Competition Law

    Philip Moser QC has a heavyweight competition law practice, having practised in this area since his earliest days at the Bar (as junior counsel in the FEFC Freight Conference case in front of the Commission in 1993) and previously taught the subject at Cambridge.

    In recent years, Philip has acted in one of the first fast-track cases in the Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT), XL Farmcare, and is Leading Counsel for the 600+ Claimants in the biggest UK follow-on damages claim (Air Cargo) and for the lead Defendants in the Vattenfall Cable Cartel litigation. He is recognized as a Leader in Competition Law in the Legal 500.

    Also a recognized Leader in Procurement Law (having acted, amongst others, in the leading Supreme Court case Edenred), Philip often advises on the intersection between competition, state aid and procurement law.

    Further relevant cases include the Floe litigation (telecoms) and Sockel v Body Shop (injunctions for failure to supply/dominant position).

    Selected Current/Recent Cases

    • Vattenfall & ors v Prysmian & ors (Power Cable Cartel) (Ch Div), ongoing; – Article 101 TFEU – Power Cable Cartel – Follow-on and standalone damages – jurisdiction – Recast Brussels Regulation
    • 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
  • Commercial Agency

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

    • 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)
  • Commercial / Arbitration

    Philip Moser QC, 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).

    Recent cases include:

    • 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);
    • Norbrook Laboratories Ltd v Carr [2013] EWHC 476 (QB) (unincorporated associations; dispute between fisheries owners on the River Eden);
    • 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”);
    • 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”);
    • 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).
  • VAT

    Philip Moser QC 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 include:

    • 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
  • International Law

    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 include:

    • 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
  • Professional Negligence

    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).

  • What the Directories Say

    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.”

  • Publications and Media
    • Brexit: ‘Once you trigger article 50, there is no way back’ podcast.
    • Editor of ‘Making Community Law – The Legacy of Advocate General Jacobs at the ECJ’ (with Katrine Sawyer), Edward Elgar Publishing (2008) – for further details, please click here.
    • Author of ‘Damages for Breach of the EC Public Procurement Rules in the United Kingdom’ (with Michael Bowsher) (2006) 15 PPLR Issue 4, p.195
    • Author of ‘Finished Business: calculating termination payments to commercial agents’ (2002) 146 SJ 1062, and (with J. Munro) of the follow-up: ‘Uncertain rewards’ (2005) 149 SJ 256
    • Assistant Editor of ‘Professional Negligence and liability’ (1st ed.) (LLP, 2000; gen. ed.: Mark Simpson)
    • Contributor of Chapter on ‘EC Law and Crime’ in ‘Practitioners’ Handbook of EC Law’, Trenton Publishing/Bar Council/BEG, 1998 (with Alan Newman QC)
    • Author of ‘The Impact of the Applicable Law of Contract on the Law of Jurisdiction under the European Conventions’ (1996) 45 ICLQ 190 (with Christopher Forsyth; “real meat” test approved by Court of Appeal in Print Concept v GEW [2001] EuLR 577)
    • Sole contributor of ‘Precedents’ chapter to: ‘European Courts Practice and Precedents’, Sweet & Maxwell, 1st ed., 1996 (gen. ed.: Richard Plender QC)
  • Additional Information

    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.

    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.

Add to portfolio View portfolio