In a judgment handed down on 12 February 2016, the High Court dismissed a claim for abuse of dominance brought against Google Inc., Google Ireland Limited and Google UK Limited (“Google”) by online map provider Streetmap.EU. In doing so, the High Court held that where a pro-competitive innovation by a dominant company is alleged to have harmed competition on a related market, the effect on competition in that market must be serious or appreciable in order to constitute an abuse of dominance.

Please click to view the full Case Note .

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

Article 132(1)(i) of the PVD requires the following supplies to be exempt from VAT:

the provision of children’s or young people’s education, school or university education, vocational training or retraining, including the supply of services and of goods closely related thereto, by bodies governed by public law having such as their aim or by other organisations recognised by the Member State concerned as having similar objects.

This case note was written by George Peretz QC and first published in De Voil.

Please click to view the full Case Note.

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

Imogen Proud, pupil barrister

The Court of Appeal recently handed down judgment in an appeal concerning the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (“DRIPA”). This piece of coalition government emergency legislation, which received royal assent on 17 July 2014, was challenged by MPs David Davis and Tom Watson, represented by Liberty. The judicial review concerned the Home Secretary’s powers to order the retention of communications data under section 1 of the Act. The Home Secretary appealed against the judgment of the Divisional Court ([2015] EWHC 2092 (Admin)), which found section 1 of DRIPA to be contrary to the CJEU’s judgment in Joined Cases C/293/12 and C/594/12 Digital Rights Ireland Ltd and Seitlinger and Others (“Digital Rights Ireland”). The Divisional Court’s order disapplied section 1 with effect from March 2016. The Court of Appeal accepted, on a provisional basis, the Home Secretary’s argument that Digital Rights Ireland did not lay down mandatory requirements applicable to all Member States’ domestic data retention regimes, contrary to the Divisional Court’s interpretation. The Court of Appeal has decided to refer questions to the CJEU concerning the meaning of the Digital Rights Ireland judgment.

Daniel Beard QC and Gerry Facenna acted for the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Azeem Suterwalla (instructed by Bhatia Best Solicitors) acted for the Respondents Brice and Lewis.

Please click to view the full case note.

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

 

Article 3(5) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) binds the Union to contribute ‘to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter‘. Does this provision have teeth and can it be used to support the rights of those outside the Union who are affected by EU acts? In an action brought before the UK courts, the Claimants seek to challenge the validity of two EU agreements with Morocco.

Conor McCarthy, led by Kieron Beal QC, is acting for the Claimant in this matter. They were instructed by Leigh Day.

Please click to view the full Case Note.

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

 

James Bourke

In the most recent episode of Ryanair’s epic campaign to guard its territorial interests in Aer Lingus, the Competition Appeal Tribunal has ruled that there has been no “material change of circumstances” since the Competition Commission’s final report of 28 August 2013. The judgment provides insight into the meaning of “material change of circumstances” and makes it clear that, absent such a change, the competition authority does not need to carry out a fresh proportionality review of its remedy decision when taking a decision implementing the remedy under Section 41 of the Enterprise Act 2002.

The CMA was represented by Daniel Beard QC, Rob Williams and Alison Berridge.

Please click to view the full Ryanair Holdings plc v Competition and Markets Authority case note.

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

 

Tarlochan Lall

It is perhaps apposite to say for a decision given on the first day of the Ashes Test cricket match, that the Supreme Court has bowled a googly in the Rank litigation. The outcome was determined by an argument neither party ran at any stage nor was picked up in the lower courts.

Please click to view the full Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v The Rank Group Plc [2015] UKSC 48 case note.

 

Edenred (UK Group) Limited (Appellants) and another v Her Majesty’s Treasury and others (Respondents) [2015] UKSC 45, on appeal from [2015] EWCA Civ 236: the Appellants unsuccessfully sought to prevent the modification of a public contract on the basis that it was in breach of EU procurement law

Azeem Suterwalla

This appeal concerned a challenge to the decision by HM Treasury (‘HMT’) to use National Savings and Investments (‘NS&I’) to provide the necessary accounts services for HMRC to deliver the new government policy of tax-free childcare (‘TFC’). This required an amendment to a contract between NS&I and Atos IT Services Ltd (‘Atos’), NS&I having entered into an outsourcing contract for its own services with Atos in 2013. The Appellants argued that the proposed amendment of the contract between NS&I and Atos would involve the direct award of a public contract without a tender procedure contrary to EU and UK public procurement law. Each of the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court have held that there is no material variation of the existing public contract and no need for a further procurement process.

Please click to view the full Edenred (UK Group) Limited and another v Her Majesty’s Treasury and others case note.

The concept of an “enterprise” has been at the heart of the UK’s idiosyncratic system of merger control from the passage of the Fair Trading Act in 1973 through to the present regime set out in the Enterprise Act 2002 (“EA02”). A consistent feature of the regime has been that it catches a transaction only if it involves two (or more) “enterprises” ceasing to be distinct. Leaving aside for present purposes the complexities of the notion of “ceasing to be distinct”, when a purchaser buys a collection of assets previously used to carry on a business, has it bought just a collection of assets, or has it bought an “enterprise”? If it has bought only assets, but not an “enterprise”, then the transaction lies outside the scope of UK merger control. So the question of what “enterprise” means is, often, a critical one on which turns the regulation of very major transactions.

Please click to view the full Societe Cooperative de Production SeaFrance S.A v CMA and DFDS case note.

In this article for the Bloomberg BNA’s Viewpoint series, Raymond Hill examines the Court of Justice’s line of case law on single/multiple supplies following on from the Tellmer decision – and particularly the recent judgment in Wojskowa.

Please click to view the full Single multiple Supplies Definition for VAT Treatment article.

Raymond Hill is a barrister at Monckton Chambers in the U.K. and may be contacted by email at rhill@monckton.com. He was counsel for the U.K. before the Court of Justice in the Purple Parking, Field Fisher and Wojskowa cases. The views he expresses are his own and not necessarily those of the U.K. tax authorities or members of Monckton Chambers.

The Court of Appeal has upheld Littlewoods’ claim for adequate indemnity by way of compound interest. HMRC however succeeded on Littlewoods’ appeal against Vos J’s earlier decision1 that restitution claims are excluded by sections 78 and 80 Value Added Tax Act 1994 (“VATA”). This may be relevant to other claims for compound interest where High Court proceedings have not been issued.

Lady Justice Arden DBE, who gave judgment for their lordships dealt with a series of issue. The following is a summary of each of the issues and the Court’s conclusion on each.

Please click to view the full Littlewoods v HMRC case note.

 

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