Paul Lasok QC, Melanie Hall QC and Frank Mitchell will be speaking to the Irish Tax Institute on Thursday 20 January in Dublin. The talks will focus on the impact of the European Courts of Justice in relation to VAT.
Search
Christopher Vajda QC Listed in The Lawyer’s Hot 100 for 2012
Chambers is pleased to announce that Christopher Vajda QC has been listed in The Lawyer’s Hot 100 2012 which states that “Vajda’s EU and competition expertise is top notch.”
The Lawyer states:
“Appearing in not one but two of The Lawyer’s top 20 cases for 2012, and with two Supreme Court cases expected to be heard in the coming months, Monckton Chambers’ Christopher Vajda QC is on a roll.
In March interlocutory hearings will begin as telecoms giant Nokia, represented by Vajda, seeks damages for alleged price-fixing against LCD screen manufacturers Samsung. Later in the year Vajda will argue the case for HM Revenue & Customs over VAT payments on loyalty card schemes in the Supreme Court and will also return to the court to argue a competition case, BCL Old Co Ltd & Ors v BASF & Ors. Vajda’s EU and competition expertise is top notch.
The annual supplement identifies members of the legal profession who have excelled in their chosen fields during the past year.
Government victory in tobacco industry challenge to the “Tobacco Display Ban”
R (Imperial Tobacco, BAT, Philip Morris and Gallaher) v Secretary of State for Health
Twice adjourned and listed as one of the top 10 cases of 2011 by The Lawyer, the tobacco industry’s long running proceedings for judicial review of the primary and secondary legislation prohibiting the display of tobacco products in shops have now concluded in the Government’s favour. The tobacco manufacturers and retailers alleged that the prohibition of display infringed in particular the free movement of goods and freedom of expression provisions of the EU Treaty and the ECHR respectively. A five day hearing was fixed for early February 2012, but the Claimants have now discontinued proceedings.
Ian Rogers was instructed by the Secretary of State for Health.
In England, the ban will come into force in large shops, such as supermarkets, on 6 April 2012 and will protect young people from unsolicited promotions, helping them to resist the temptation to start smoking. It will also help and support adults who are trying to quit. Smoking kills more than 80,000 people in England alone every year. Small shops do not have to change their displays until 2015.
Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are also moving towards similar bans.
In a case run in parallel with the display challenge, the Court of Appeal upheld the prohibition of cigarette vending machines by a majority and set out in detail how the principles of proportionality and the margin of discretion applied in a public health context: R(Sinclair Collis) v Secretary of State for Health [2011] EWCA Civ 437; [2011] 3 C.M.L.R. 37; [2011] A.C.D. 98.
In addition, Ian Rogers appeared at the oral hearing for the United Kingdom in support of Norway’s case in the EFTA Court (Philip Morris Norway v Norway Case E-16/10), in which Philip Morris sought to strike down the Norwegian display ban.
Government victory in tobacco industry challenge to the “Tobacco Display Ban”
R (Imperial Tobacco, BAT, Philip Morris and Gallaher) v Secretary of State for Health
Twice adjourned and listed as one of the top 10 cases of 2011 by The Lawyer, the tobacco industry’s long running proceedings for judicial review of the primary and secondary legislation prohibiting the display of tobacco products in shops have now concluded in the Government’s favour. The tobacco manufacturers and retailers alleged that the prohibition of display infringed in particular the free movement of goods and freedom of expression provisions of the EU Treaty and the ECHR respectively. A five day hearing was fixed for early February 2012, but the Claimants have now discontinued proceedings.
Ian Rogers was instructed by the Secretary of State for Health.
In England, the ban will come into force in large shops, such as supermarkets, on 6 April 2012 and will protect young people from unsolicited promotions, helping them to resist the temptation to start smoking. It will also help and support adults who are trying to quit. Smoking kills more than 80,000 people in England alone every year. Small shops do not have to change their displays until 2015.
Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are also moving towards similar bans.
In a case run in parallel with the display challenge, the Court of Appeal upheld the prohibition of cigarette vending machines by a majority and set out in detail how the principles of proportionality and the margin of discretion applied in a public health context: R(Sinclair Collis) v Secretary of State for Health [2011] EWCA Civ 437; [2011] 3 C.M.L.R. 37; [2011] A.C.D. 98.
In addition, Ian Rogers appeared at the oral hearing for the United Kingdom in support of Norway’s case in the EFTA Court (Philip Morris Norway v Norway Case E-16/10), in which Philip Morris sought to strike down the Norwegian display ban.
Monckton Feature in The Lawyer’s Top 20 Cases for 2012
Monckton Chambers has been listed for 3 cases in The Lawyer’s Top 20 Cases of 2012 which include:
Nokia v Samsung & Others (alleged price-fixing in relation to LCD technology)
Featuring
- Christopher Vajda QC, Paul Harris QC and Ben Rayment for the claimants Nokia
- Paul Lasok QC and Alistair Lindsay for Samsung SDI
Tesco v Office of Fair Trading (a challenge to a £10.4m fine for a competition infringement in the OFT’s dairy investigation)
Featuring
- Tim Ward QC and Kassie Smith for the Office of Fair Trading
Loyalty Management UK v HM Revenue & Customs (an appeal to the Supreme Court in relation to VAT payments for loyalty cards)
Featuring
- Christopher Vajda QC for HM Revenue & Customs
The cases, selected by over 100 leading litigators, barristers and senior clerks represent the most significant cases for 2012 in terms of developing the law as well as increasing London’s reputation as an international centre for litigation.
Monckton Feature in The Lawyer’s Top 20 Cases for 2012
Monckton Chambers has been listed for 3 cases in The Lawyer’s Top 20 Cases of 2012 which include:
Nokia v Samsung & Others (alleged price-fixing in relation to LCD technology)
Featuring
- Christopher Vajda QC, Paul Harris QC and Ben Rayment for the claimants Nokia
- Paul Lasok QC and Alistair Lindsay for Samsung SDI
Tesco v Office of Fair Trading (a challenge to a £10.4m fine for a competition infringement in the OFT’s dairy investigation)
Featuring
- Tim Ward QC and Kassie Smith for the Office of Fair Trading
Loyalty Management UK v HM Revenue & Customs (an appeal to the Supreme Court in relation to VAT payments for loyalty cards)
Featuring
- Christopher Vajda QC for HM Revenue & Customs
The cases, selected by over 100 leading litigators, barristers and senior clerks represent the most significant cases for 2012 in terms of developing the law as well as increasing London’s reputation as an international centre for litigation.
Victory for Environmental Groups on EU emissions
The Court of Justice of the European Union has today ruled that extending the EU emissions trading scheme to international aviation activities, under Directive 2008/101, does not breach public international law. The extension will enter force as from 1 January 2012.
The Court rejected the claim from US airlines including United, Continental, American and their trade association, the Air Transport Association of America (ATA) that the Directive contravened the Open Skies Agreement 2007 between the EU and the US, and various customary international law principles including the principle of the sovereignty of States over their own air space. It also held that the validity of the Directive could not be reviewed in the light of the Chicago Convention 1944 or the Kyoto Protocol 1997.
A unique transatlantic coalition of environmental groups consisting of three US-based organisations, the Environmental Defense Fund, Earthjustice, and the Center for Biological Diversity, as well as WWF-UK, Transport & Environment, and the Aviation Environment Federation in Europe, intervened in the proceedings, which were commenced in a judicial review in the High Court.
The Court concluded by stating that “examination of Directive 2008/101 has disclosed no factor of a kind that affects its validity.”
The coalition was represented by Jon Turner QC and Laura Elizabeth John.
Please find links to further press below:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/21/international-airlines-carbon-emissions
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16282692
Key Strasbourg Ruling on Hearsay Evidence and “Judicial Dialogue”
Eric Metcalfe acted on behalf of the NGO intervener JUSTICE in a landmark judgment by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Al Khawaja and Tahery v United Kingdom.
The much-anticipated ruling came in the wake of the judgment of the UK Supreme Court in R v Horncastle in late 2009 in which the Supreme Court had strongly criticised the earlier chamber judgment of the European Court in Al Khawaja. At issue was the use of hearsay evidence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as the “sole or decisive” basis for a person’s conviction, and whether this was compatible with the right to cross-examine witnesses as part of the right to a fair trial under Article 6(3)(d) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The UK Supreme Court complained that the European Court of Human Rights had misunderstood the safeguards in the 2003 Act that prevented unfairness to the accused. The UK government therefore sought a referral to the Grand Chamber and a hearing was held in May 2010.
In its judgment, the Grand Chamber upheld its previous rulings that a conviction based “solely or decisively” on the testimony of absent witnesses was likely to breach the right to a fair trial under article 6 unless it could be shown that “there are sufficient counterbalancing factors in place”, including “measures that permit a fair and proper assessment of the reliability of that evidence to take place”. The Grand Chamber ruled that the safeguards available in the case of one of the applicants (Al Khawaja) had been sufficient to meet fair trial concerns, but found the UK government in breach of article 6(3)(d) in relation to the second applicant, Mr Tahery.
In addition to its implications for “sole or decisive” rule under article 6, the Grand Chamber ruling has a significant public law dimension as it relates to the process of “judicial dialogue” under section 2 of the Human Rights Act between the UK Supreme Court and the European Court in cases in which the UK Supreme Court has serious concerns about the implications of a Strasbourg ruling for UK law. In a concurring opinion, the European Court’s President Sir Nicolas Bratza described the case as “a good example of the judicial dialogue between national courts and the European Court on the application of the Convention”.
Competition Commission clears frozen meals merger
The Competition Commission (CC) today issued its final report into the acquisition by Kerry Foods Limited of Headland Foods Limited. Before the merger, the companies were the two largest suppliers in the UK of frozen ready meals (FRMs), mainly to supermarkets. After a detailed investigation, the CC accepted Kerry’s case that retailers were able to find alternative sources of FRMs from other suppliers in the UK and on the Continent, so that there was no substantial lessening of competition.
Kerry was represented before the OFT by George Peretz and Ronit Kreisberger, and before the CC by John Swift QC and George Peretz.
For the Competition Commission’s inquiry page, with links to its report and the submissions of each of the parties, please click here.
Victory against Network Rail in landmark High Court public procurement decision
Elisa Holmes and Fiona Banks successfully represented Photo-Me International Plc in defending a strike out application brought by Network Rail Infrastructure Limited.
In what is set to be a landmark case, the judgment considers the relationship between the Utilities Directive (Directive 2004/17/EC) and the General Directive (Directive 2004/18/EC). In particular, in finding that although Network Rail was a Utility for some purposes, the activities in question (the provision of concessions) were outside of the scope of the Utilities Directive, His Honour Judge Havelock-Allan QC found that the General Directive nevertheless applied to Network Rail in respect of all of its activities in light of the concession made by Network Rail that, for the purposes of the application only, the Court could treat it is as being a contracting authority within the meaning of the General Directive. There was no concept of “public activities” incorporated into the General Directive, even insofar as utilities are concerned.
The issue of the application of general principles of EU was decided by the Court as if it was a preliminary issue, given it raised a pure point of law.
The judgment also makes an important contribution to the debate about the implication of contractual terms in the context of public procurements. In particular, Judge Havelock-Allan QC found that “I have no difficulty concluding that there is a real prospect of [Photo-Me] being able to establish an implied tender contract”.