The Administrative Court has rejected a claim by Abbey Mine to quash a decision of the Coal Authority to grant a licence to Corus, the steel maker, to mine coal in the Margam area of South Wales.  The Court had to consider how to apply the public law principle of fairness in the context of a comparative evaluation of competing bids.  Among the arguments it rejected was that fairness dictated that the decision maker should disclose a number of documents to Abbey Mine.  A competition law attack was also made on the Coal Authority.  This also failed.  Of particular interest was the Court’s rejection of an argument that, because of the royalty payments received from its licensing functions, the Coal Authority was an undertaking for the purposes of competition law.

Christopher Vajda QC and Josh Holmes, instructed by Nabarro, acted for the Coal Authority.

Please click below for more information on:
Josh Holmes

We are delighted that Monckton Chambers has been nominated as ‘Chambers of the Year’ and Peter Roth QC has been shortlisted as ‘Barrister of the Year’ as part of The Lawyer Awards 2007.  It is great to have been chosen among hundreds of entries.  The winners will be announced on 26th June 2007 at an award ceremony at The Grosvenor House Hotel.

Paul Lasok QC, Head of Chambers says: “We are very pleased with this news, especially as this year saw a tough panel of judges including some of the biggest names in the City.”

We would like to take this opportunity to thank our clients for their continuous support.

First published by De Voil Indirect Tax Intelligence, Issue 131, April 2007

Just Fabulous (UK) Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs was one of three cases which were not consolidated but were effectively heard together by the Administrative Court (Burton J), each relating to the powers of HM Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) in relation to so-called “contra-trading” fraud, a variation of MTIC or carousel fraud.

On 23 March 2007 Mr Justice Rimer gave judgment in Pirelli Cable Holding NV and others v. Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2007] EWHC 583 (Ch.), the latest chapter in the long-running Advance Corporation Tax (‘ACT’) group litigation.

The five test cases in the ACT group litigation (of which Pirelli is one) result from the 2001 decision of the ECJ in Metallgesellschaft v. IRC and Hoechst v. IRC [2001] Ch. 620. They are aimed at resolving the issues arising out of a large number of claims for compensation by foreign companies and their UK subsidiaries in respect of payments of ACT made between 1973 and 1999, which the ECJ held in Metallgesellschaft/Hoechst to be contrary to the right of establishment under Article 43 EC.

Two of the five test cases have progressed through the domestic courts and were decided by the House of Lords in 2006 (Pirelli and Deutsche Morgan Grenfell); two are currently being heard by the House of Lords (Sempra Metals and Boake Allen / NEC Semiconductors); while the last case, “Test Claimants in Class IV” was referred back to the ECJ, which delivered judgment on 12 December 2006.

The central issue in Pirelli was whether the payment of a tax credit to a parent company resident in another EU Member State should have any bearing on the compensation now payable to its UK subsidiary in respect of unlawful ACT payments. Having lost the argument in the House of Lords, Pirelli sought to argue before Rimer J. (to whom the matter was remitted) that the Claimants were nevertheless entitled under EC law to a separate tax credit that they had not yet received and which now had to be brought into account in assessing the compensation due in line with the ECJ’s judgment in Metallgesellschaft.

Rimer J. rejected the argument, finding that neither domestic law nor Community law provided Pirelli with a right to any such tax credit. The Judge held that the Claimants should have raised the point before the House of Lords but that, on balance, it was not an abuse of process for them to do so now.

It is now expected that there will be a further hearing to deal with factual issues and the method of assessing the relevant amount of compensation in line with the decision of the House of Lords.

Meanwhile, the House of Lords has set down a further day in May 2007 for argument in Sempra Metals, another of the ACT test cases, to deal with issues relating to the restitutionary claims by the ACT Claimants and the issue of whether compensation should be calculated using compound interest.

The original High Court actions in Metallgesellschaft and Hoechst were commenced in 1995 before Neuberger J., sufficiently long ago that the same Judge is now sitting in the House of Lords in one of the test cases (Boake Allen / NEC Semiconductors). Increasingly, it looks like what Lord Hoffman has referred to as ‘the forensic fall-out’ from Metallgesellschaft will see out another decade.

Gerry Facenna is instructed as junior counsel to HM Revenue & Customs in two of the five ACT group litigation test cases, Sempra Metals and Pirelli.

 

 

 

The Administrative Court gave judgment in a further test case involving ‘penalty charge notices’, more commonly known as ‘parking tickets’, which affects millions of people every year: R(Transport for London) v The Parking Adjudicator.

The general rule is that a parking attendant must serve a parking ticket on the spot by fixing it to the vehicle or by giving it to the person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle.  In London, there are two statutory exceptions permitting service by post.  One is concerned with contraventions observed by camera.  The other is where “a parking attendant attempts to issue a penalty charge notice in accordance with section 66(1) of the [Road Traffic Act 1991] but is prevented from doing so by any person” (s5 London Local Authorities Act 2000).

TfL brought judicial review proceedings against the Parking Adjudicator claiming that the adjudicator had adopted an unlawfully narrow interpretation of their power to serve by post under the second exception.  The issues were the meaning of “attempts to issue” and “prevented”.  Tfl argued that where an attendant had merely begun to note the vehicle details in a handheld device or notebook, that constituted an ‘attempt to issue’ a ticket.  Further, that merely by driving away, the driver ‘prevented’ the ticket being issued and Tfl were entitled to serve a ticket by post in such circumstances.

The Administrative Court upheld the decision and reasoning of the Parking Adjudicator on all points and dismissed Tfl’s application.  Merely preparatory acts, such as jotting down notes, do not amount to an attempt, applying the common law and common usage.  Given that the meaning of ‘issue’, in its statutory context, must refer to the act of ‘fixing’ or ‘giving’, it cannot be an ‘attempt to issue’ if the attendant is inputting details into a computer device or making notes. To make an ‘attempt to issue’, the attendant must be in the course of physically affixing the ticket or giving it to the person appearing to be in charge.  It follows that a ticket cannot be served by post if the ticket has not been completed by the time the vehicle is driven away.

The Judge also upheld the Parking Adjudicators’ interpretation of ‘prevention’ as involving violence or the threat of violence, in this context.  The judgment confirms the narrow scope of the power to serve parking tickets by
post, and minimises the risk of local authorities using the provision to issue tickets when an attendant has not had sufficient time to ascertain that a contravention has in fact occurred.

Ian Rogers appeared for the Parking Adjudicator.

 

 

 

The Court of First Instance (CFI) heard an important state aid case, T-475/04, which raises the question of in what circumstances the grant of 3G mobile licences can involve state aid. Bouygues, the number 3 operator in France has challenged a decision of the European Commission that the grant of 3G licences to SFR and France Telecom involved no aid.

Christopher Vajda QC who was instructed by the Paris office of Denton Wilde Sapte, acted on behalf of SFR, the number two mobile operator in France and addressed the CFI in French. Judgment is expected in the summer.

 

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has dismissed an appeal against a cartel penalty imposed under Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 against Sepia Logistics Ltd, formerly Double Quick Supplyline Limited.

The appellant manufactured components for use in double glazed windows.  It admitted its liability for what the Tribunal described as a “very serious infringement” of the Chapter I prohibition which concerned both price fixing and market sharing.  It challenged the quantum of the penalty imposed on grounds, inter alia, of financial hardship.  The OFT had considered, but rejected those contentions.  During the course of the penalty appeal, the Appellant produced a quantity of additional information on its financial position, but the Tribunal noted there remained “certain grey areas”.

The Tribunal upheld the OFT’s decision on all points.  It rejected a submission by the Appellant it was incumbent on the OFT to carry out additional investigations of its financial position, noting:

“where an undertaking is making a plea for a mitigated penalty to a regulatory (whether under the auspices of a formal leniency policy or otherwise, as was the case here), the onus must be on the applicant to provide the regulator with all information and/or documentation needed to assess its application and not on the regulator to actively seek out or require production of those documents and/or that information.”

The Tribunal’s decision also contains a valuable analysis of the circumstances in which two or more companies in the same group may be considered to be a single undertaking for the purposes of competition law.

Tim Ward represented the OFT.

 

 

 

The High Court (Chancery Division) dismissed (on Friday 2 March 2007) an application for an interim injunction by AAH Pharmaceuticals Limited and 7 other pharmaceutical wholesalers to restrain the implementation of Pfizer Limited’s new distribution arrangements for its prescription drugs in the UK, which include the drugs Lipitor and Viagra. The claimants claim that the arrangements, which were due to come into force today (Monday 5 March 2007), infringe both UK and EC competition law. Unichem Limited, a pharmaceutical wholesaler, which has an agreement to deliver Pfizer’s products to pharmacies and dispensing doctors, was joined as a party to the proceedings. Mr Justice David Richards gave his reasons for his decision to reject the application this morning (5 March 2007).

Peter Roth QC and Ronit Kreisberger were instructed by the claimants while Ben Rayment was instructed as junior counsel for Pfizer.

 

We are pleased to announce that Ronit Kreisberger has been appointed to the Attorney General’s ‘C’ Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown.

Ronit specialises in European, competition and public law, with a particular focus on EC/UK competition and regulatory work, procurement and general European law.

This appointment consolidates the recent appointments to the A and B Panel. Monckton Chambers now numbers four ‘A’ Panellists, seven ‘B’ Panellists and six ‘C’ Panellists. This is a great honour and a significant acknowledgement of our expertise in all aspects of public administrative and European law.