Testing The Drug Testers In Court Of Arbitration For Sport Appeals

UK Sport’s drug testing procedures were under attack in the Court of Arbitration for Sport last week. In appeals from the British Weightlifter’s Association Disciplinary Panel, two weightlifters undertook a wholesale attack on the sample collection procedures undertaken by UK Sport at the British National Championships and also on the sample testing procedures undertaken at King’s College’s Drug Control Centre on behalf of UK Sport. Doubt could be cast on positive doping findings undertaken by UK Sport across many sports in the UK in the event the Appellants are successful.

Elisa Holmes represented the British Weightlifters Association, defending UK Sport’s procedures.

Please click below for more information on:
Elisa Holmes

Michael Collins Elected Chairman Of The Bar Council Of Ireland

Michael M.Collins S.C. a door tenant of Monckton Chambers, has been elected as Chairman of the Bar Council of Ireland. Michael is a senior counsel practising primarily from Dublin, specialising in commercial litigation, competition law, EU law, constitutional law and judicial review. He was called to the Irish Bar in 1978, to the English Bar in 1987 and took silk in Ireland in 1994. He is also a member of the Bars of New York (having practised there with Sherman & Sterling in the early 1980s and was called to the Bar of the United States Supreme Court in 2003). The variety of Michael’s practice can be seen from the fact that he acted for BUPA in its successful challenge to the risk equalisation scheme introduced by the Irish Government to the health insurance industry in Ireland (Irish Supreme Court decision 16th July 2008) and, in a case pending before the Irish Supreme Court, he is acting for two gay women, arguing that they have a right to marry under the Irish Constitution and under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Michael has been a member of the Bar Council of Ireland for the past 4 years and has been Vice-Chairman for the past year. He was re-elected to the Bar Council two weeks ago with the largest vote in the history of Bar Council elections and was elected as Chairman of the Bar Council on the 18th July 2008.

“It is a tremendous honour to have been elected as Chairman of the Bar Council and my priority is to ensure that irrespective of the regulatory environment, members of the Irish Bar can continue to act as utterly independent and fearless advocates for clients while maintaining the highest possible standards of professionalism and integrity” Michael said. “It is also vital that we maintain the links between the independent referral Bars of the world and I particularly value my membership of Monckton Chambers in that context as well.”

Paul Lasok QC, Head of Chambers, said: “Michael’s colleagues at Monckton Chambers all send their congratulations. It is a well-deserved appointment”.

Please click below for more information on:
Michael Collins SC

Judicial Review granted re: University College London’s proposed academy in Camden

On 17 July the Administrative Court granted permission for a judicial review of the Government’s decision to approve the Expression of Interest submitted by University College London for the establishment of an academy in the London Borough of Camden. The challenge alleges that there has been a breach of the EU rules on public procurement.

Christopher Vajda QC is acting for the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families.

Isle of Man Ferry Services Judicial Review Struck Out

On 10 July the Isle of Man equivalent to the High Court struck out on grounds of delay an application for Judicial Review of a decision by the Isle of Man authorities to enter into an exclusive agreement with a ferry company in respect of ferry services between the Isle of Man and the North West coast of England. The challenge alleged that the decision was both ultra vires and contrary to the EU law.

Christopher Vajda QC and Ian Rogers acted for the Isle of Man.

Please click below for more information on:
Ian Rogers

 

 

 

 

Church Of Latter Day Saints Challenges Business Rates Decision In The House Of Lords

Last week, the House of Lords heard argument in the Church of Latter Day Saints v Gallagher (Valuation Officer) case. The appellant church challenged a decision to refuse to exempt its Preston Temple from business rates. There is a statutory exemption for places of “public worship”, but the Valuation Officer ruled that the Temple, which is not open to the general public, does not qualify. The Church complained that this gives rise to discrimination, contrary to Article 14 ECHR (prohibition on discrimination on enjoyment of Convention rights), read together with Article 9 (freedom to manifest religion). It seeks to persuade the House of Lords to depart from an earlier decision of the House on the status of another of the Church’s temples, taken long before the Human Rights Act 1998, namely Henning v Church of Latter Day Saints [1964] AC 420.

Tim Ward was instructed by the Secretary of State.

Please click below for more information on:
Tim Ward QC

Two Monckton Members Appointed To New FoI Panel

Due to the increasing amount of appeals under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Treasury Solicitor’s Department has set up a specialist panel to act in FOIA appeals on behalf of Government Departments. Two members of Chambers have been successfully selected to be on the panel; George Peretz and Gerry Facenna.

In addition to this new panel status, they still remain free to act in FOIA appeals for other public bodies and for private bodies or interest groups seeking access to information.

Please click below for more information on:
George Peretz
Gerry Facenna

Tesco Appeal to Competition Appeal Tribunal

Tesco today launched a legal challenge against one of the remedies recommended by the Competition Commission in its latest inquiry into the grocery sector. Tesco is challenging the Commission’s proposal to introduce a ‘competition assessment’ into the UK planning system. The challenge has been brought in the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

The Commission, in its recent Groceries Market Investigation Final Report, recommended that:

The Department of Communities and Local Government (CLG), the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly Government and the Northern Ireland Executive should take such steps as are necessary to make the OFT a statutory consultee to LPAs on all applications for planning permission, whether submitted by a grocery retailer or a third party, for development of a grocery store (including new stores and extensions) where that store had, or after the proposed scheme has been implemented will have, a net sales area in excess of 1,000 sq metres.

The OFT should provide advice to the LPA on whether a particular retailer has passed or failed a ‘competition test’. Applications would pass the test if within the area bounded by a 10-minute drive-time of the development site: the grocery retailer that would operate the new store was a new entrant to that area; or the total number of fascias in that area was four or more; or the total number of fascias in that area was three or fewer and the relevant grocery retailer would operate less than 60 per cent of groceries sales area (including the new store).

Tesco will argue that the recommendation does not address the underlying problem identified by the Commission in its report, namely the barriers to entry created by the planning regime. Tesco also considers that the Commission failed properly to assess the costs and benefits of the remedy, which if adopted, would place an artificial cap on organic growth.

Julian Gregory is instructed by Tesco.

Please click below for more information on:
Julian Gregory

Weight Watchers Court of Appeal Judgment

The Court of Appeal have given judgement in Weight Watchers v. HMRC. Peter Mantle represented HMRC, who successfully overturned the decision of the VAT & Duties Tribunal. The issue in this VAT case was whether or not Weight Watchers made a single supply (standard rated) to its meetings members, or separate supplies of services at the weekly meeting and of zero rated printed materials. The Court of Appeal concluded that there was a single supply.

The case is important because the Court, in correcting errors made by the Tribunal, emphasised, that in applying the ‘artificial to split test’ found in the ECJ’s judgement in Levob it is necessary to have full regard to (1) the economic element of the test, that is the need to assess from the economic point of view, in business to consumer transactions as well as B2B transactions; and (2) the need to look at the transaction from the perspective of the typical consumer. In particular the Tribunal’s refusal to identify a typical consumer, on the basis that customers had diverse characteristics and motives so that there could be no typical consumer, and their failure even to identify minimum attributes of meetings members was fatal to their analysis. The Court rejected aspects of the Tribunal’s approach that could have led to a narrowing of the circumstances in which a single supply was identified in the UK on the ‘artificial to split’ basis (rather than the ‘principal/ancillary’ basis) contrary to the jurisprudence of the ECJ. Though not strictly necessary for the decision, the Chancellor affirmed that although an appeal court had to show circumspection on this type of VAT appeal it was not limited to intervening only when the test in Edwards v. Bairstow was met. This also helps elucidate his approach in Zurich Insurance Co [2007] STC 1756, a case used by some to try to restrict generally the scope of appeals involving VAT classifications

Peter Mantle was instructed by HMRC.

Please click below for more information on:
Peter Mantle

Rejection of Lisbon Treaty Referendum Claim

R (on the application of Stuart Wheeler) v Office of the Prime Minister & Anor [2008] EWHC 1409 (Admin)

On 25 June, the Divisional Court (Richards LJ and Mackay J) gave judgment in favour of the Defendants, the Office of the Prime Minister and the Foreign & Commonwealth Office in the claim for judicial review brought by Mr Stuart Wheeler.

The Court explained that the claim failed for several reasons.

Mr Wheeler failed to establish the existence of the implied promise upon which his case of a legitimate expectation depended, namely a promise to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

As to the issue of the differences between the Lisbon Treaty and the Constitutional Treaty, the Court stated, “Unlike the Constitutional Treaty, the Lisbon Treaty does not purport, either by its title or in its terms, to lay down a constitution for Europe. Unlike the Constitutional Treaty, it does not repeal the existing treaties and replace them by a single text, but proceeds by way of amendment of the existing treaties; and it leaves in place the existing entities and institutions (save that the European Community is subsumed into the European Union) rather than replacing them with a new legal entity. We see no basis for dismissing such differences as obviously immaterial even if they are treated as differences of form rather than of substance. There are also, on any view, differences of substance.”

The court noted that an assessment of the substantiality or materiality of such differences as exist depends on political perspective and political judgment and made observations as to the justiciability of the issue. At best the review of the Government’s assessment had to be approached on a Wednesbury basis, and as such, the Court was “far from persuaded that the assessment is an unreasonable one”.

As to the question of whether a promise of this kind could give rise to an enforceable legitimate expectation, the Court held, “The subject-matter, nature and context of a promise of this kind place it in the realm of politics, not of the courts, and the question whether the government should be held to such a promise is a political rather than a legal matter.”

Furthermore, the Court held that the fact that the claim would involve an interference by the court with the proceedings of Parliament was a further decisive reason why the claim must fail.

To view the judgment, please click here.

Ian Rogers appeared on behalf of the Office of the Prime Minister and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Please click below for more information on:
Ian Rogers