The 2016 Chambers Bar Awards shortlist has been announced and Monckton Chambers has been nominated for ‘Set of the Year’ in both the Competition and Human Rights & Public Law categories. In addition, Daniel Beard QC is in the running for Competition Silk of the Year. The results will be announced at the ceremony on Thursday, 27th October at The London Hilton on Park Lane.
Today, the People’s Challenge Interested Parties have publicly released their skeleton argument for the Article 50 TEU litigation to be heard in the Divisional Court on 13 and 17 October 2016. The People’s Challenge Interested Parties are the first to publish their arguments so that the general public can see the arguments in this historic and important piece of litigation.
Please see the skeleton argument for the substantive hearing.
In summary, the People’s Challenge Interested Parties argue that an Act of Parliament is necessary before Article 50 TEU can be triggered because any use of executive prerogative power to trigger Article 50: (1) has been removed by constitutional statutes; (2) does not extend to removing fundamental citizenship rights; or (3) would, in any event, be abusive if it were exercised to trigger the UK’s withdrawal from the EU (assuming it subsists and extends to removing fundamental rights).
The skeleton argument has had to be redacted as the Government has not agreed to publication of the content of the Secretary of State’s detailed grounds.
The People’s Challenge Interested Parties have additionally applied to the Divisional Court for clarification of its Order made in July as they believe that the Government could (and should) make its case available so that the general public can understand its position. Please see details of that application.
The People’s Challenge Interested Parties are a number of ordinary UK and EU citizens living in England, Gibraltar, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, as well as British expats located in France. They are supported by funding raised through the crowdfunding platform, Crowdjustice.
Gerry Facenna QC and Jack Williams are instructed by Bindmans LLP on behalf of the People’s Challenge Interested Parties.
The 2016 Chambers Bar Awards shortlist has been announced and Monckton Chambers has been nominated for ‘Set of the Year’ in both the Competition and Human Rights & Public Law categories. In addition, Daniel Beard QC is in the running for Competition Silk of the Year. The results will be announced at the ceremony on Thursday, 27th October at The London Hilton on Park Lane.
Monckton counsel have successfully defended the Environment Agency’s decision not to renew water abstraction licences near to Catfield Fen in Norfolk. The applications were to allow the continued use of groundwater for agricultural purposes from existing abstraction sites near to a Special Area of Conservation protected by the EU Habitats Directive. Catfield Fen contains calcareous fen (a priority habitat under the Habitats Directive) as well as a large population of the rare fen orchid and protected water beetles.
The decision of the Environment Agency to refuse the licences was considered at a three week planning inquiry held in Norwich in Spring 2016. At the inquiry the Environment Agency, supported by Natural England and the RSPB, presented evidence of rapid ecological change on site suggestive of deteriorating water chemistry which was potentially a result of the water abstractions. By contrast the appellant contended that, applying the test under the Habitats Directive, it was beyond reasonable scientific doubt that the water abstractions were not responsible for any ecological change.
Having considered detailed expert evidence on fen ecology, hydrogeology and water chemistry, Elizabeth Hill BSc(Hons), BPhil, MRTPI, the Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, dismissed the appeals, finding: ‘it cannot be concluded beyond reasonable scientific doubt that abstraction under the licences would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of sites protected by European law, namely, the Broads SAC.’ She also rejected arguments that the licences should be granted in any event due to “imperative reasons of overriding public interest”, namely the impact of refusing the licences on the economy.
The Planning Inspector’s decision can be read here.
The Environment Agency was represented by Gerry Facenna QC, Daisy Mackersie and David Gregory.
The recently launched The Legal 500 UK Bar 2016 noted Monckton Chambers for its ‘tremendous strength in depth’, and being ‘the premier set for EU and competition disputes’ as well as a strong choice for telecoms regulatory, indirect tax and public law. 40 individual barristers are listed across18 practice areas with many recommended in multiple categories.
Monckton Chambers has been recommended as a TOP-TIER set in the following practice areas:
The Set has also been ranked in a further 5 areas:
Individual members were also recognised as “Leading Individuals” in:
The annual legal directory further described the Set as follows: ‘The barristers are all user-friendly, unstuffy, very good at rolling up their sleeves and fun to work with’, and are complemented by the ‘21st century and entrepreneurial-style clerking’, which is ‘highly professional and client-focused’; ‘they know how to match the right barrister to the right case and appear to take care to do so, rather than just looking at who has capacity at any given time.’
For further details visit the Legal 500 website.
The General Court of the EU yesterday dismissed appeals by Lundbeck, the leading pharmaceutical company, and a number of manufacturers of generic products, against a Commission decision finding that they were party to agreements that infringed EU competition rules and imposing fines.
The case concerned citalopram, a widely-used treatment for mental health conditions. The agreements were entered into at a time when various generic manufacturers had been taking steps to start supplying citalopram, but Lundbeck had also launched, or was threatening to launch, patent infringement proceedings against those manufacturers in the UK and EEA. Under the agreements, the generic manufacturers received payment from Lundbeck and also agreed not to supply citalopram for a period of time.
The General Court dismissed the companies’ claim that, because of the position in relation to patents, the generic manufacturers could not be regarded as potential competitors of Lundbeck. It also rejected the companies’ argument that, because Lundbeck had a patent claim, an agreement not to sell citalopram in potential breach of that claimed patent could not be regarded as an ‘object restriction’ for the purposes of Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. It agreed with the Commission that, despite the patent claims: (i) the generic companies should be regarded as potential entrants, and (ii) the agreement was a restriction by object.
The case is the first judgment by the European Courts on the “pay for delay” issue, and is a very important decision for the pharmaceutical sector, as well as being the latest word on the category of object restrictions.
A link to the judgments is here.
Please click here to view the full case note.
George Peretz QC acted for the European Commission in T-467/13 Arrow v Commission; Ben Rayment acted for the European Commission in T-471/13 Xellia and Alpharma v Commission; Ronit Kreisberger and Ligia Osepciu acted for Merck in T-470/13 Merck KGaA v Commission; James Bourke acted for the European Commission in Case T-472/13 Lundbeck v Commission, Case T-469/13 Generics (UK) v Commission and Case T-470/13 Merck KGaA v Commission.
Christopher Muttukumaru CB argues in our Brexit Blog that aspects of environmental law, as they apply to the delivery of major infrastructure projects in a post Brexit world, could be very difficult to sweep away since they involve both EU Law and Public International Law obligations
To read the full blog piece please click here Aspects of environmental regulation as they apply to the delivery of major infrastructure projects
Christopher has also written a piece titled Cases before the CJEU at the time of Brexit: could the interests of justice be timed out?
Stephen Cragg QC and Nikolaus Grubeck, instructed by Kate Harrison at Harrison Grant, acted for Labour Party members excluded from an automatic right to vote in the forthcoming leadership election, on the basis that they have not been members of the Party for more than six months (Evangelou and others v The Labour Party).
In the High Court of Justice on the 4th August Mr Justice Hickinbottom decided that, under the Labour Party rules, the Labour Party’s National Executive Committee does not have the power to disenfranchise 150,000 members, including the claimants.
This means that all members who joined the party before 12th July 2016 have equal rights to vote in the leadership election.
Imogen Proud was instructed for hand down and consequentials.
See The Guardian website.
The High Court has determined a series of preliminary issues arising out of claims brought by three individuals whose family members were murdered by unknown third parties in the immediate aftermath of the withdrawal of Slobodan Milosovic’s forces from Kosovo in June 1999. Milosovic’s withdrawal followed Nato operations to which the UK contributed. Following the promulgation of UN Security Council Resolution 1244, the UK provided forces to the Kosovo Force (or KFOR) which was given various security taskings. The murders took place within the area for which UK forces had lead responsibility. The Claimants brought (i) claims under the Human Rights Act and (ii) tort claims under local Kosovan law in the Queen’s Bench Division. They were seeking, amongst other things, the establishment of a public enquiry in relation to the alleged breach of the investigative obligations alleged to have arisen under Articles 2 and 3 ECHR, and damages. Preliminary issues were heard on, amongst other issues, (i) whether the alleged acts or omissions of UK forces were to be attributed to the UK or the UN; (ii) whether the claimants where within the jurisdiction of the UK for the purposes of Article 1 of the ECHR; (iii) whether an investigative obligation arose or continued under Articles 2 or 3 of the ECHR; and (iv) whether the UK could avail of any operative immunity in relation to such claims. In a long and detailed judgment, Irwin J determined all of the preliminary issues in favour of the MoD. The Claims will therefore be dismissed.
Brendan McGurk was led by James Eadie QC. The judgment can be found here (1) Dr. Vesna Kontic (2) Snezana Milenkovic (3) Verica Tomanovic v The Ministry Of Defence [2016] EWHC 2034 (QB).
Case T-66/14 Bredenkamp & Ors v Council, 21st July 2016
The General Court of the CJEU has rejected an application for damages brought by Zimbabwean businessman John Bredenkamp, and 3 companies owned by him, for damages for loss caused by their listing on the EU’s Zimbabwe sanctions list.
The court held that the applicants’ listing was not unlawful wherefore the applicants were not entitled to the damages claimed, so that the Court did not go on to consider the arguments on causation and loss. The Court found that listing a businessman on the basis of strong ties to the Government was a sufficiently clear statement of reasons, with a valid legal basis. Although the Council had not communicated the evidence forming the basis for the designation, the applicants had been given the bulk of the evidence justifying their listing, albeit by way of obtaining them in national proceedings against the UK government and the Court found that this would not therefore have made any difference to the applicants’ rights of defence.
Philip Moser QC acted for Mr Bredenkamp and his companies
