Monckton Chambers are delighted to announce that Tim Ward QC was awarded the ‘Barrister of the Year’ accolade at the annual Lawyer Awards. Tim was commended for acting on behalf of the Icelandic Government during the Icesave case.

Melanie Hall QC received third place in the ‘Barrister of the Year’ category, as a result of acting on behalf of HMRC and successfully saving the taxpayer £20billion in the past year.

Monckton Chambers also received third place in the ‘Chambers of the Year’ category.

The Lawyer Awards were held on 25^th June at the Grosvenor House Hotel, London.

To read more about the Icesave case, please click here

For more information of The Lawyer Awards, please click here.

Monckton Chambers’ Daniel Beard QC and Rob Williams have successfully defended the Competition Commission against an application brought by AkzoNobel NV challenging the Competition Commission’s decision in the AkzoNobel/Metlac merger inquiry.  AkzoNobel NV was represented by Tim Ward QC and Alistair Lindsay, also of Monckton Chambers.

The case is the first concerning the scope of the Competition Commission’s powers to make enforcement orders which extend to a person’s conduct outside the United Kingdom.

In its judgment, the Competition Appeal Tribunal considers the circumstances in which a person can properly be said to be “carrying on business in the United Kingdom” for the purposes of s. 86(c) of the Enterprise Act 2002.

The Tribunal found that the Competition Commission had not made an error of law in finding that AkzoNobel NV, a Dutch holding company, was carrying on business in the United Kingdom and could therefore be the subject of an enforcement order.

Click here to read the full AkzoNobel v Competition Commission judgment

Mercedes have avoided stern sanctions for their involvement in last month’s tyre test in Barcelona after the FIA announced they were to receive a reprimand.

The decision comes after the FIA’s International Tribunal sat yesterday to determine whether Mercedes and Pirelli broke Formula 1’s rules prohibiting competitors entered in the Championship from running their current cars during in-season testing.

The FIA claimed that Mercedes and Pirelli were never granted official permission by the governing body to conduct a three-day, 1,000 km tyre test last month at the Circuit de Catalunya in Barcelona.

The tribunal found that Mercedes had broken article 22.4 of the sporting regulations by running an illegal in-season test with a current car, despite receiving “qualified approval” from the FIA to run the test.

The tribunal found that there was no intention by Mercedes to gain “any unfair sporting advantage” and they did not act in bad faith.

The Telegraph quoted: “Mercedes’ barrister, Paul Harris QC, even felt so bold as to close by suggesting a few “appropriate” sanctions for the tribunal’s five judges to chew over with dinner last night. Harris said that a “reprimand might be proportional” given the total lack of clarity from the FIA over whether or not they should be allowed to use a 2013 car at the test. Failing that, perhaps their running at the next Young Driver Test should be curtailed. Any penalty more severe than that, Harris said, should surely be suspended given the inconsistencies in the FIA’s case. To be honest, he had a point.”

Mercedes have also been banned from competing in the forthcoming young driver test session to be held at Silverstone on 17-19 July, the world governing body confirmed in a statement.

Paul Harris QC and Fiona Banks acted on behalf of Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix.

The case has been widely covered in the media, including:

BBC

The Guardian

The Independent

Paul Harris QC appears before the FIA’s International Tribunal today regarding an F1 tyre test in which Mercedes have been accused of breaking Formula 1’s rules prohibiting competitors entered in the Championship from running its current contender during in-season testing.

The FIA claims that Mercedes and Pirelli were never granted official permission by the governing body to conduct a three-day, 1,000 km tyre test last month at the Circuit de Catalunya in Barcelona.

Paul Harris QC, acting on behalf of Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix, has rejected the FIA’s claim.

To view live coverage of the hearing, please click here.

The case has received substantial press coverage, including:

• BBC
• The Telegraph
• Sky Sports
• Autosport
• Sporting Life

Eric Metcalfe took part in a panel discussion on the UK law relating to surveillance and intelligence gathering on ‘Unreliable Evidence’, broadcast on Radio 4.

To listen to the full programme on the BBC iPlayer, please click here.

This case was a challenge by Resource against the University of Ulster regarding the winner of a competitive tender process did not meet the minimum financial requirement and that its tendered price was abnormally low.

The claim involved the hearing of the application to continue suspension of the award of this major contract.  It now proceeds to a substantial claim for damages.

Michael Bowsher QC was instructed by Tughans for Resource NI Ltd.

To read the full Judgment of the High Court of Northern Ireland please click here.

John Swift QC has announced his intention to conclude his membership with Monckton Chambers, effective from the end of the legal year in July 2013.

John was called to the Bar in 1965 and took Silk in 1981. He became a Bencher of the Inner Temple in 1992.

John joined Monckton Chambers in 1967. From 1993 – 1998, he was the first Rail Regulator (head of non-Ministerial Government department) appointed under the Railways Act 1993. He resumed full time practice as a member of Monckton Chambers in 1999, where he was Head of Chambers until July 2001. For the past 14 years he has been involved as advocate and adviser in many of the most important cases and inquiries in the field of competition law and economic regulation, both in the UK and the EU.

Since 2009 John Swift has also been a panel member of the Cooperation and Competition Panel, now integrated within Monitor, which was established by the Department of Health to administer the principles and rules for cooperation and competition for NHS funded services. John has thus been involved in two of the critical Government programmes for reconstruction of the public sector.

Paul Lasok QC, Head of Monckton Chambers said: “John has had a long and distinguished career as one of the UK’s top competition lawyers. His legacy at Monckton Chambers is a new generation of competition lawyers following in his path. We all wish him well.”

Case C‑183/12 Ayadi v European Commission, judgment, 6 June 2013

The ECJ has upheld Mr Ayadi’s appeal against the General Court’s decision that he had no further interest in his action for annulment following his removal from the list of persons and entities considered to be associated with Al-Qaida or the Taliban under Regulation (EC) No 881/2002. The ECJ followed the decision of its Grand Chamber in Case C‑239/12 P Abdulrahim v Council and Commission and found that the definitive repeal of the regulation at issue, by the removal of Mr Ayadi’s name from the list at issue does not prevent an interest in bringing proceedings from continuing to exist so far as concerns the effects of the regulation at issue between the date of its entry into force and that of its repeal.

The case has been referred back to the GC.

Philip Moser QC acts for Mr Ayadi and Mr Abdulrahim.

To read the full judgment please click here

The Grand Chamber of the ECJ has held that the General Court erred in law in holding that, following his delisting, Mr Abdulrahim lacked any continuing interest in bringing annulment proceedings against the decision to place him on the terrorist list.

The case has been remitted to the General Court.

Philip Moser QC acted for Mr Abdulrahim.

To view the judgment, please click here.

The ECJ has just given judgment in Case C-651/11 X v Staatsecretaris van Financien, which concerns the eligibility of share sales to be treated as a transfer of a going concern under what is now Article 19 of the Principal VAT Directive (PVD).  The Netherlands, like the UK, treats the transfers of the “totality of assets or part thereof” (referred to as a “transfer of a going concern” in the UK) as not being a supply of goods or services: as a result, generally the transferor and transferee can treat expenses incurred in such transfers as part of the general overheads associated with its entire economic activity and deduct input tax on those expenses accordingly.

In the case referred to the ECJ by the Dutch Supreme Court, X claimed that the sale of the 30% shareholding that it held in company (‘A’)  was a transfer of the “totality of assets or part thereof” because X also carried out management work for A for consideration.   The ECJ agreed with the Dutch Government, supported by the UK, that the claim should be rejected.  The ECJ held that the transfer of shares could not be equated to the transfer of totality of assets or part thereof.  It was irrelevant that the sale was accompanied by the sale to the same purchaser by all the other shareholders of their shareholdings in company C. The management service did not assist X because it was not an autonomous undertaking which could be operated independently by the transferee as it ceased on the sale.   The ECJ noted a previous case (SKF) where it had held that the transfer of a 100% shareholding could amount to a transfer of assets, but it cast some doubt on the correctness of, and certainly the wider application of, that earlier ruling.

The ruling essentially confirms that pure share sales are unlikely to qualify as transfers as a going concern.  It may have implications for those advising on business asset sales involving share transfers and for a number of cases currently before the tax tribunals.

Raymond Hill and George Peretz acted for the United Kingdom in the ECJ.

To read the full judgement please click here