The Lawyer has published the Top 20 Cases due to be heard in 2018, which this year has “public interest cases take centre stage” and is described as “a plethora of headline-grabbers.” Four members of Monckton Chambers are highlighted in this year’s list relating to two cases:

Peugeot SA & Ors v NSK Ltd & Ors

Competition Appeal Tribunal,

16 April, six weeks

Peugeot has launched a claim for damages against automotive parts supplier NSK Ltd and others that will reach court in April, following a March 2014 European Commission decision that identified cartel behaviour. The commission found the defendants guilty of collusive behaviour relating to their supply of automotive bearings to claimant the Peugeot group between 2004 and 2011. The upcoming hearing will examine the remaining technical issue surrounding the ‘overcharge’ resulting from anti-competitive behaviour.

The defendants claim this overcharge was passed onto Peugeot’s customers and, as such, it is not their responsibility to pay further damages. There is also confusion as to the extent of Peugeot’s loss resulting from the defendants’ cartel behaviour, and whether it is possible to monetise that loss.

Monckton Chambers’ Josh Holmes QC and James Bourke, instructed by Macfarlanes partner Geoff Steward is acting for the fifth defendant, AB SKF

 

Liberty v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors

High Court,

27 February, two days

Liberty is seeking a judicial review of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, otherwise known as the ‘Snooper’s Charter’, which was brought into law while Theresa May was home secretary in 2015.The bill granted the security services and the police powers to hack devices such as mobile phones and computers, and to retain data that might help them combat an increased terror threat. The legislation provoked an immediate backlash from civil rights campaigners who said it compromised citizens’ right to privacy and journalists’ ability to do their job.

The powers granted by the bill, including a requirement for telecoms operators to retain data, thematic hacking, the bulk interception of communications and the bulk acquisition of data, are (according to Liberty) incompatible with EU law and in contravention of the terms of the 1998 Human Rights Act.

Monckton Chambers’ Gerry Facenna QC and Michael Armitage, alongside Blackstone Chambers’ James Eadie QC and 11 KBW’s Julian Milford, are instructed by the Government Legal Department for the defendant, the Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors.

Please click here to view the full article, if a subscriber of premium content.

On 23 January 2018, the CMA published its provisional decision that Fox taking full control of Sky is not in the public interest due to media plurality concerns, but not because of a lack of a genuine commitment to meeting broadcasting standards in the UK.  The media plurality concerns identified mean that, overall, the CMA provisionally concluded that the proposed transaction is not in the public interest.  The public interest issues had been referred to the CMA by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.  The CMA’s final view is due in summer 2018, when the matter will be referred back to the Secretary of State for a final decision on the merger.

The CMA provisionally found that if the deal went ahead, as currently proposed, it would be likely to operate against the public interest. It would lead to the Murdoch Family Trust (MFT), which controls Fox and News Corporation (News Corp), increasing its control over Sky, so that it would have too much control over news providers in the UK across all media platforms (TV, Radio, Online and Newspapers), and therefore too much influence over public opinion and the political agenda.  The MFT’s news outlets are watched, read or heard by nearly a third of the UK’s population, and have a combined share of the public’s news consumption that is significantly greater than all other news providers, except the BBC and ITN.  Due to its control of News Corp, the Murdoch family already has significant influence over public opinion and full ownership of Sky by Fox would strengthen this even further.  While there are a range of other news outlets serving UK audiences, the CMA provisionally found that they would not be sufficient to moderate or mitigate the increased influence of the MFT if the deal went ahead.

The CMA’s investigation also examined a range of evidence to understand whether Fox, Sky and the MFT have a genuine commitment to broadcasting standards in the UK. Here, it provisionally found that Fox taking full control of Sky was not likely to operate against the public interest.

Kassie Smith QC and Julian Gregory are acting for the Secretary of State in this matter.

George Peretz QC and Azeem Suterwalla are acting for Avaaz, who are objecting to the transaction.

This has been widely covered by the press: BBC, The Guardian, The Independent, The Times.

Advocate General Wathelet has delivered a landmark opinion in Case 266/16 on the validity of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU and Morocco. The case raises potentially far-reaching issues regarding the relationship between the EU and third counties and the extent to which such agreements must respect public international law and human rights obligations incumbent on EU institutions.

In his opinion, the Advocate General found that “the European Union has failed to fulfil its obligation not to recognise the illegal situation resulting from the breach of the right of the people of Western Sahara to self-determination by the Kingdom of Morocco and also not to render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation”. The AG further found that  in so far as they apply to the territory of Western Sahara and to the waters adjacent thereto, the Fisheries Agreement and a 2013 Protocol to that agreement are incompatible with EU law which imposes on the European Union “the obligation that its external action is to protect human rights and strictly respect international law”.

Conor McCarthy acts for the Claimant. He was instructed by Leigh Day and was led by Kieron Beal QC.

The opinion can be found here.

The Court of Appeal has ruled against the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) in a case concerning disclosure of information to a complainant where there national security concerns arise.

The claim was brought by Mr Miah who was ‘stopped’ by the Metropolitan Police at Heathrow Airport under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which allows the police to stop travellers to question them about terrorism concerns, even where there are no grounds of suspicion.

The Appellant complained to the Metropolitan Police that he had been discriminated against on grounds of race and religion and appealed to the IPCC when his complaint was dismissed without being told the reason for the stop. The IPCC dismissed his appeal.

Overturning the judgment of Hickinbottom J, the Court of Appeal found that the Metropolitan Police investigation report was defective because if failed to sufficiently explain why the complaint had been dismissed. There was no evidence that the police had considered and applied the statutory ‘harm test’ for redaction and non-disclosure. The IPCC was therefore wrong not to uphold the Appellant’s appeal that the complaint required further consideration.

The judgment in R (Miah) v IPCC [2016] EWHC 3310 (Admin) can be found here.

Mr Miah was represented by Stephen Cragg QC and David Gregory.

 

EE Ltd v Ofcom [2017] EWCA Civ 1873

The Court of Appeal has upheld an appeal by EE Ltd. in the context of the Annual Licence Fees (ALFs) it and other mobile operators pay for the use of mobile spectrum. The High Court had found last year, dismissing EE’s application for judicial review, that Ofcom had been correct to conclude that it had no discretion but to set ALFs at the market value of the relevant spectrum. The High Court had agreed that Ofcom was obliged to do so in light of a direction by the Secretary of State to set fees at a level reflecting full market value. The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding instead that the power of the Secretary of State to direct Ofcom to exercise its functions in a specific manner did not absolve Ofcom from having regard to its statutory duties and objectives under the Communications Act and the EU Common Regulatory Framework. These duties were non-delegable, and the direction by the Secretary of State did not on the face of it preclude Ofcom from having regard to its wider objectives as it was required to.

Ofcom’s 2015 decision and its implementing Regulations which brought in a significant increase in ALFs have been quashed. Ofcom has been granted permission to appeal the matter to the Supreme Court.

Philip Woolfe and Stefan Kuppen acted for EE (led by Lord Pannick QC).

The judgment can be found here.

The High Court (Phillips J) has dismissed Sainsbury’s claim against Visa in the on-going Interchange Fee litigation. In a judgment which departed from important aspects of the reasoning adopted in earlier cases (in particular, the High Court’s Judgment in Asda Stores Ltd v MasterCard Inc and the CAT’s determination in Sainsbury’s v MasterCard), Phillips J concluded that the UK Multilateral Interchange Fees imposed by Visa did not constitute a restriction on competition by effect within the meaning of Article 101 (1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Court accepted, however, that if the fees had constituted a restriction on competition within the ambit of Article 101 (1) it would not have been objectively justified for purposes of that article. This finding departs from the approach adopted by Popplewell J in the High Court’s earlier ASDA judgment.

Mark Brealey QC acted for Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd in the claim.

To read the judgment please click here.

On 4 October 2017, Mrs Justice Rose dismissed claims by Emerald Supplies Limited and other claimants seeking damages alleged to have been caused in relation to alleged overcharges for flights between the EU and third countries prior to 1 May 2004, and alleged overcharges for flights between the EEA and third countries prior to 19 May 2005. For the Judgment see here. The principal issues concerned whether Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union applied in the international air transport sector before those dates and/or whether Regulation 1/2003 changed the position as to the powers of a national court retrospectively in relation to those periods. At a hearing on 1 December 2017 Mrs Justice Rose granted Emerald Supplies and other Claimants permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The following Monckton barristers are instructed in the case:

Philip Moser QC, Ben Rayment, Anneliese Blackwood and Conor McCarthy are instructed by the Claimants.

Jon Turner QC, Michael Armitage and Stefan Kuppen for British Airways PLC

Daniel Beard QC and Thomas Sebastian for airlines facing Part 20 Contribution Claims.

United Biscuits (Pension Trustees) Ltd and another v HMRC [2017] EWHC 2895 (Ch)

The High Court (Warren J) has dismissed a claim by United Biscuits (Pension Trustees) Ltd (“UB”) against HMRC for refunds of (allegedly) overpaid VAT.

UB is the trustee of a defined benefits pension fund.  It claimed restitution of sums paid by way of VAT on supplies of pension fund management services provided by undertakings that were not authorised insurance companies (“Non-Insurers”).  Supplies of such services by Non-Insurers have always been treated as standard rated under UK law.  The two main issues were (1) whether the supplies by Non-Insurers were to be treated as exempt supplies of “insurance”, because (allegedly similar) supplies of pension fund management services by authorised insurance companies (“Insurers”) had were treated as exempt; and (2) if Non-Insurers’ supplies should have been exempt, whether EU law required UB to be given a direct claim against HMRC to recover sums they had overpaid by way of VAT to the Non-Insurers (notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Investment Trust Companies (In Liquidation) v  RCC [2017] UKSC 29; [2017] 2 WLR 1200; [2017] STC 985, “ITC SC”).

Warren J decided both issues in favour of HMRC and dismissed UB’s claim.  On Issue (1), Warren J held that the services were not “insurance transactions” within the meaning of Article 13B(a) of the Sixth Directive (388/77/EEC) or Article 135(1)(a) of the Principal VAT Directive (2006/112/EC) and were thus properly standard rated.  Further, the principle of fiscal neutrality did not require them to be treated as if they were “insurance transactions” (and thus exempt) or to be given the same (incorrect) VAT treatment as supplies of pension fund management services by Insurers.  On Issue (2), Warren J held that EU law did not require UB to be given direct claim against HMRC (a process which would require the Court to create a common law cause of action in unjust enrichment and to disapply the statutory bar on such causes of action in section 80(7) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994, notwithstanding ITC SC): it was not “impossible or excessively difficult” for UB to vindicate any EU law rights it may have via the route dictated by UK statute, namely a claim against the Non-Insurer.

If he were wrong on Issues 1 and 2, Warren J considered that any direct claim against HMRC would be a claim in unjust enrichment; and that the bar in section 80(7) would have to be disapplied only to the extent necessary to allow UB a claim for the 4-year period prior to the issue of the claim form, having regard to the 4 year “cap” on claims by Non-Insurers against HMRC under section 80(4) VATA 1994.

Andrew Macnab appeared for HMRC.

To read the judgment please click here.