Michael Bowsher QC and SSRN: Tale of Three Regulatory Regimes — Dynamic, Distracted and Dysfunctional: Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States

Written by

Abstract

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times — a year marked by genuine progress in public procurement law in some nations, and partial paralysis in others. This article presents the experience of Sweden (as part of the European Union), the United Kingdom (which is slated soon to depart from the EU, via “Brexit”), and the United States (in the first year of the Trump administration). While Sweden and other members of the European Union continue to develop a vital and evolving body of public procurement law, the United Kingdom has been distracted by Brexit, and the United States made, in 2017, almost no regulatory progress at all — though stasis itself yielded some interesting insights. This piece proceeds in three parts, prepared primarily by Andrea Sundstrand (Part II, on Sweden and the European Union), Michael Bowsher (Part III, on the United Kingdom) and Christopher Yukins (Introduction, Part IV on the United States, and Conclusion).

Authors: Michael Bowsher QC, King’s College London, Andrea Sundstrand, Stockholm University and Christopher R. Yukins, George Washington University – Law School

To read the paper, please click here.

Imogen Proud: The Prevent Duty

Written by

“Since 2015, certain ‘specified authorities’ have been under a statutory duty, in the exercise of their functions, to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism (known as the ‘Prevent duty’). This Practice Note considers the origins of this duty in the government’s overall counter-terrorism strategy (CONTEST) and in the particular context of the Prevent strategy. It covers the statutory basis of the duty and its scope and content, before considering its application to specific sectors, namely local authorities, schools and childcare, the health sector, prisons and probation and police.”

The full article is available on LexisPSL.

The Quick Guide to Legitimate Expectation in Tax Cases

Written by

The case law on legitimate expectation is wide-ranging and often complex, making it time-consuming to get to grips with the key guiding principles. This guide summarizes the key points to look out for when considering the circumstances in which a taxpayer may rely upon a representation made by HMRC, either in a publication or in a direct communication with the taxpayer. All cases necessarily turn on their own facts but it is hoped that this guide will be a helpful starting point.

To read full article please click here.

The comments made in this article are wholly personal and do not reflect the views of any other members of Monckton Chambers, its tenants or clients.

 

Professor Panos Koutrakos – International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Written by

Professor Panos Koutrakos‘ article – “Judicial Review in the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy”, opens the latest issue of International and Comparative Law Quarterly (67(1), 1-35).

Abstract

The EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) was conceived of as an area ill-suited for full judicial review by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Lisbon Treaty confers on the Court limited jurisdiction which the recent case law has interpreted in broad terms. This article will place this case law in the broader constitutional setting of the EU legal order and will provide a critical analysis of its implications for both the EU’s and domestic courts. The analysis is structured on the basis of three main themes. The first is about the position of CFSP in the EU’s constitutional architecture: the article will analyse the constitutional ambivalence that characterizes this position and how it is conveyed by the provisions of the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union governing the Court’s jurisdiction. The second theme is about the recent case law, and the integrationist approach that the Court of Justice has adopted to the scope of its jurisdiction. The third theme is about national courts: the article will argue that recent case law has been too quick to dismiss them, and that primary law renders them an essential part of the judicial review system governing CFSP.

To access the article please click here.

 

Michael Armitage & Jack Williams: collective competition law proceedings – Merricks v Mastercard

Written by

Michael Armitage and Jack Williams published an article in the Civil Justice Quarterly (the leading publication on civil procedure matters) entitled: “Some things money cannot buy – lessons learned from the latest judgment under the UK’s new regime for collective competition law claims: Merricks v Mastercard Inc”.

This is available on Westlaw, or copies available on request.

 

UK Merger Control Review: Q3 2017

Written by

In our latest quarterly review of UK merger control, we look in detail in the CMA’s recent decisions in two hospital mergers, both cleared on the (extremely rare) basis of customer benefits. We also consider the new guidance on initial enforcement orders, as well as rounding up key developments in the period.

To read this update please click here.

UK Merger Control Developments in Q2 2017

Written by

Welcome to the second edition of our quarterly update on UK merger control. This quarter we ask, and try to answer, three key questions about developments in the period:

  • The mystery of the missing casino: What lessons can retrospective studies teach us about analysing future entry?
  • The unsuccessful pagers merger: what the bleep was going on?
  • Reference test satisfied: black Wednesday?

To read this update please click here.

UK Merger Control Developments in Q1 2017

Written by

Introduction

This update covers Q1 2017.

In it, I investigate three questions.

  1. Whether the CMA’s willingness to accept undertakings in lieu (“UILs”) in phase 1 has increased in the last two years and, if so, why?
  2. What impact, if any, will Brexit have on UILs?
  3. Whether the CMA’s willingness to use GUPPI and IPR is declining?

In the second half of this update, I round up Q1 developments in de minimis and exiting firm.

To read this update please click here.