Monckton Chambers has been listed as a “leading chambers” in the Who’s Who Legal: UK Bar 2015, with total of 31 member listings.

Members were listed in Competition, Media & Entertainment, Public Procurement, Sport and Telecoms as “leaders in their field.”

“The set is home to some of the country’s most respected and established practitioners who are at the forefront of key commercial and public areas of law. Its 31 listings, and its leading position in three distinct practice areas in our research, typify Monckton Chambers’ pre-eminent status in the UK Bar.” 

The following members were listed:

Competition: Paul Lasok QC, David Unterhalter SC, Jon Turner QC, Tim Ward QC, Paul Harris QC, Daniel Beard QC, Meredith Pickford QC, Alistair Lindsay, Josh Holmes, Ronit Kreisberger, Rob Williams, Anneli Howard,  Alison Berridge

Media & Entertainment: Paul Harris QC

Public Procurement: Paul Lasok QC, Michael Bowsher QC, Philip Moser QC, Valentina Sloane, Rob Williams, Ewan West

Sport: Paul Harris QC, Fiona Banks

Telecoms: Jon Turner QC, Tim Ward QC, Daniel Beard QC, Meredith Pickford QC, Josh Holmes, Robert Palmer, Anneli Howard, Ben Lask, Stefan Kuppen

Further, the following members were listed as “most highly regarded” in their fields:

Competition: Jon Turner QC, Daniel Beard QC, Josh Holmes

Public Procurement: Michael Bowsher QC, Valentina Sloane, Rob Williams

Telecoms: Tim Ward QC, Daniel Beard QC, Robert Palmer

 

The article reads as follows:

Monckton Chambers has a history stretching back to the early 20th century, a large membership including 14 QCs, and expertise across a wide area of commercial and civil law. In particular, its barristers are immensely knowledgeable in competition, EU law, and other public and regulatory areas. The set is also commendable for striking an excellent balance between established silks and talented juniors.

Competition law is the essence of Monckton Chambers. Indeed, we have listed six silks and seven juniors, attesting to its leading reputation. Standout barristers in this field include Daniel Beard QC, who is immensely popular among solicitors for being “tremendously bright” and “strategically astute”. Jon Turner QC is “one of the stars at the bar” and “knowledgeable beyond measure”. The “fantastic” Tim Ward QC receives substantial praise in this area for his “unsurpassed expertise” and “user-friendly approach”. Meredith Pickford QC is “acclaimed” by many; he is marked out by his tenacity in the courtroom and his “renowned” source of economic knowledge. Prominent juniors include the “impressive” Josh Holmes, who wins numerous fans for being “clear”, “articulate” and “a talented advocate”. Alistair Lindsay is “phenomenally able” and widely seen as an “intelligent and sophisticated advocate”.

The chambers’ brilliance in EU, regulatory and competition law gives it an edge in the telecommunications sector; with three silks and six juniors, Monckton has the deepest bench of leading telecoms specialists in our research. Jon Turner QC is “one of the sector’s top legal minds”, acting for companies at every court level. Tim Ward QC has “extensive experience” before the Competition Appeal Tribunal and is a valuable asset to his telecoms clients; he is “easy to work with” and a “fantastic presence in court”. Meredith Pickford QC is also “first choice” in this field for a number of respondents, who are impressed with his “supreme technical and commercial expertise”. Prominent juniors include Anneli Howard, who is a “talented telecoms lawyer as well as a great competition lawyer”. She is described as “practical and intelligent” and is “prized by those who work with her”. The “excellent” Robert Palmer is another key player in this industry, one solicitor noted that he was “practical and clear in his advice both verbally and in writing. He has been able to flag important issues beyond the immediate scope of instruction”.

Monckton’s strong foundation in EU and public law has also given it an advantage with regard to public procurement. In this rapidly developing area of public law, the set has the strongest presence in our research with three silks and three juniors. They provide suppliers, contracting authorities and utilities with an “exceptional” service, from non-contentious advice during the tender process to representation in highly complex litigation. Among them is Michael Bowsher QC, one of the first barristers to cultivate a procurement specialism and “the indisputable authority in procurement law”. Paul Lasok QC is a senior silk with a “deep understanding of EU case law” that he has utilised to form a “top-notch” procurement practice. Monckton’s leading juniors include Rob Williams, who “applies creativity and a meticulous work ethic to great effect”. He is regularly consulted by the public and private sector on complex procurement issues. Valentina Sloane is widely regarded as both “strong and intelligent” and someone who “inspires confidence”.

Please click to view the full article.

Recall Support Services & ors (Appellants) v Secretary of State for Culture Media & Sport (Respondent)

By Order dated 24 February 2015 the Supreme Court has refused the application made on behalf of a group of GSM Gateway operators for permission to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision in this Francovich damages claims for over £400million (see Court of Appeal Recall Support Services v Secretary of State for Culture Media & Sport).

Daniel Beard QC, Philip Moser QC and Brendan McGurk acted for the Respondent.

Mrs Justice Thirlwall has today handed down judgment in a case in which a transsexual person applied for a declaration that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“GRA”) was incompatible with Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The GRA was, of course, the very Act that was implemented in order to ensure convention-compliant treatment of transsexual persons in the UK. More particularly, the applicant, who had undergone gender reassignment surgery, contended that the additional evidential burden faced by those seeking the grant of a gender recognition certificate further to such treatment were unnecessary, humiliating and disproportionate. The applicant pointed to the fact that a gender recognition certificate could be obtained simply by demonstrating that, amongst other things, he or she had lived in the acquired gender for two years. The Court rejected the argument that there were any additional evidential hurdles or that Article 8, whether on its own or in conjunction with Article 14, was interfered with by the requirements imposed by s.3 of the Act. The Court did, however, find that being a post-operative transsexual person did constitute an “other status” for the purposes of Article 14.

Please click to view the judgment in Carpenter v Secretary of State for Justice

Brendan McGurk acted on behalf of the Secretary of State for Justice

 

The majority of the public procurement provisions in The Public Contracts Regulations 2015 come into force today, 26 February 2015. A link to the text is [here]. They implement the EU’s 2014 Public Sector Procurement Directive (see previous news item: [here]). The new provisions now in force apply to procurements started on or after today’s date.

This will affect in substance all public contracts, only certain new rules (e.g. e-procurement) will not be implemented until as late as 2018.

Separate Regulations will be made for Scotland, where the existing rules continue to apply for the time being.

 

The CMA today scored a third Court of Appeal victory in the long running battle over Ryanair’s stake in rival airline, Aer Lingus.

Since the CMA first opened its investigation in 2010, Ryanair has brought a series of challenges, first to the investigation itself (alleging the CMA had no jurisdiction), and later to the CMA’s final decision, which required Ryanair to reduce its stake to 5%.

The Court of Appeal today held:

• That the CMA’s procedure had been fair, and that Ryanair had had the opportunity to respond fully to the case affecting it;
• That the CMA was entitled to impose a remedy which removed the realistic possibility of a substantial lessening of competition (rather than merely making an SLC less than probable); and
• That requiring divestiture of the shareholding did not conflict with any (hypothetical) future decision of the European Commission to allow Ryanair to make a bid for Aer Lingus.

Daniel Beard QC, Rob Williams and Alison Berridge represented the CMA.

Please click to view the judgment in Ryanair Holdings plc v Competition and Markets Authority

The High Court has quashed Winchester City Council’s decision to adopt an updated scheme for a £165 million redevelopment of the Silver Hill area, in the heart of Winchester city centre. The judicial review challenge had been brought by Kim Gottlieb, himself a Winchester city councillor, against his own local authority. Mr Gottlieb is the leader of the Winchester Deserves Better campaign against the development.

The original 2004 Development Agreement pre-dated the ECJ’s landmark judgment in the Auroux v Roanne case, with the result that no procurement exercise had been conducted at the outset. The Council decided in 2014 to authorise variations to it to allow the current developer, Henderson Global Investors, to abandon a requirement of 35% affordable housing, and to replace a requirement for a bus station and various civic uses with additional retail space, including a new department store, which had not been part of the original scheme.

Mrs Justice Lang, applying the ECJ’s decision in Pressetext, held that the decision was unlawful in the absence of a fresh procurement exercise. The Council’s decision to vary the original Development Agreement showed its intention to renegotiate its essential terms and to change the economic balance of the contract in favour of the developer.

The case is notable for the finding that where the court is considering a development contract or concession contract, the commercial value will be judged by the potential profits to be obtained from third parties, not just the awarding authority: the financial terms between the parties are not the only consideration. The judge also distinguished the approach of Mrs Justice Andrews in the recent case of Edenred (UK Group) Ltd v HM Treasury [2015] EWHC 90 (QB), who had held that variations to a contract would not be material for the purposes of the Pressetext test unless the evidence demonstrated that “there would be someone else who would have been ready, willing and able to bid, who would have wished to have done so if the opportunity had been made clear, but who did not do so because it was not.” In the present case, where there had never been any previous tendering exercise, the Claimant could not identify any actual or potential bidders who had been deterred or disadvantaged. Lang J held that that was not a prerequisite. The Claimant had satisfied the court that, on the balance of probabilities, a realistic hypothetical bidder would have applied, had the scheme been advertised on the new terms. The Claimant was not required to identify actual potential bidders.

The Council also argued that no relief should be granted to Mr Gottlieb, since he was not an economic operator with an interest in the operation of procurement law. Lang J rejected that argument, and quashed the decision to authorise the variations.

Robert Palmer acted for the Claimant, Mr Gottlieb, instructed by Dentons UKMEA LLP.

A link to the judgment is here. 

This judgment has received the following press coverage:

• ITV 
• BBC

 

 

 

 

In its second judgment in Liberty and others v GCHQ and others, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal today declared that the legal framework governing the UK intelligence services’ receipt of communications intercepted by the NSA violated Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The ruling marks the first time the Tribunal – which considers complaints brought against GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 – has found against the intelligence agencies in its 15-year history.

The judgment has received widespread press coverage, including the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, the BBC and The Lawyer.

Please click here to read the full judgment.

Eric Metcalfe acted for Liberty, the American Civil Liberties Union, and five other international human rights organisations that brought a joint complaint against the intelligence services in 2013 alleging unlawful surveillance and intelligence-sharing following publication of documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

The fourth annual Sir Jeremy Lever lecture was held at the Faculty of Law of the University of Oxford on Friday 30^th January, to celebrate the career of Sir Jeremy Lever KCMG, QC, a pioneer of both the practice and academic study of European Law.

The lecture, supported jointly by the Faculty of Law, All Souls College and Monckton Chambers, was entitled “The Principle of Mutual Recognition in the area of Freedom, Security and Justice” and was given by Judge Koen Lenaerts, Vice President of the Court of Justice of the European Union and chaired by The Rt Hon The Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, President of the Supreme Court.

Left to right: Professor Sir John Vickers, Warden of All Souls, The Rt Hon Sir David Edward KCMG, QC, Judge Nicholas Forwood, Professor Sir Francis Jacobs QC, Professor Hugh Collins, Vinerian Professor of English Law and Acting Dean of the Faculty of Law of the University of Oxford, Judge Lenaerts, Sir Jeremy Lever KCMG QC, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, Professor Stephen Weatherill, Paul Lasok QC, Piers Gardner.

The event was followed by a celebratory dinner at All Souls College, attended by members of the Faculty of Law, guests and members of Monckton Chambers.

To view the background to lecture delivered by Judge Koen Lenaerts, Vice President of the Court of Justice of the European Union, please click here The Principle of Mutual Recognition in the area of Freedom, Security and Justice.

 

The First-tier Tribunal has just given judgment in a case concerning the disclosure of commercially sensitive information under the Environmental Information Regulations 2006:  Royal Borough of Greenwich v ICO and Shane Brownie EA/2013/0162

A local residents’ group in Greenwich had asked the Council to disclose copies of a “viability assessment” on the basis of which the Council had permitted a private developer to vary the level of affordable housing at a major development site. The Council disclosed versions of the relevant documentation in which the key financial figures and assumptions underlying the assessment had been redacted, on the basis that the exemption in regulation 12(5)(e) for confidential commercial information prevented their disclosure.

The Information Commissioner overturned that decision, and the Council appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. In a decision which contains a detailed consideration of the factors that are relevant (and irrelevant) to the public interest balancing exercise in cases involving the disclosure of allegedly commercially sensitive environmental information, the Tribunal ruled in favour of the residents’ association that the redacted information should be disclosed in its entirety.

Please click here to view the judgment in Royal Borough of Greenwich v ICO and Shane Brownie

This case has been featured in an article in the Evening Standard

The successful City Peninsula Residents association were represented by Michael Armitage, having also been advised during the proceedings by Julianne Kerr Morrison (both on a pro bono basis). Gerry Facenna acted for the Information Commissioner.

 

 

The CMA have successfully resisted claims for judicial review brought by Tobacco manufacturer Gallaher and high street retailer Somerfield Stores, each of whom sought to challenge the lawfulness of the CMA’s refusal to repay penalties which they paid having admitted certain competition infringements at the culmination of the OFT’s Tobacco Investigation. The OFT concluded that a number of  tobacco manufacturers and retailers had been engaged in indirect retail price maintenance in relation to the retail sale of tobacco products. Some of those found to have infringed Article 101/the Chapter 1 Prohibition appealed to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Gallaher and Somerfield did not having instead entered into Early Resolution Agreements pursuant to which, having admitted the infringements, they received substantial reductions to the penalties payable.

During the settlement process, the OFT was said to have given an assurance to another Early Resolution party to the effect that it could take the benefit of any successful appeals brought by any appealing party. That assurance was not given to any other Early Resolution party. As a result of successful appeals brought by Imperial Tobacco and others, the OFT felt obliged to make a payment to the party who was given the assurance. Gallaher and Somerfield claimed that the OFT’s failure to extend that assurance to any other Early Resolution party (and thus the refusal to make any similar repayments) was unfair and a breach of the principle of equal treatment. In finding that the assurance was in fact made and that that the principle of equal treatment applied in these circumstances, Collins J nevertheless dismissed the claims on the basis that the OFT made a mistake in giving the assurance insofar as it was inconsistent with the principles of legal certainty and finality as they applied to competition infringement decisions. The principle of equal treatment did not now require the CMA to replicate that mistake by way of the repayment of penalties paid by Gallaher and Somerfield.

Please click to view the judgment in Gallaher and Somerfield v CMA