The parties are both providers of Digital Retinal Screening Software (DRSS) to the UK’s diabetic retinopathy screening programmes.  The aim of diabetic retinopathy screening is to reduce the risk of sight loss among people with diabetes. The screening programme involves a systematic annual screening of all diabetic patients aged 12 or over, using digital photography of the retina, followed by a two or three-stage image grading process to identify the changes of sight threatening retinopathy in the retina.   The OFT has concluded that the merger is not expected to lead to a substantial lessening of competition within a DRSS market or markets in the United Kingdom and has today published its clearance decision.

Ben Rayment was directly instructed by the parties to represent them before the OFT.

As one of the leading commercial sets at the Bar to host a stellar cast of competition law practitioners, Monckton Chambers has always been a first port of call for many city solicitors seeking merger control advice and, where necessary, representation before specialist courts and tribunals.

Clients include full service law firms, city and international law firms without a dedicated merger control team in London as well as General Counsel who can instruct the Bar directly.

NEIL HERRON  and PARKING APPEALS LIMITED v THE PARKING ADJUDICATOR; (SUNDERLAND CITY COUNCIL and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT as Interested Parties)

Court of Appeal (Stanley Burnton and Aikens LJJ, Sir David Keene)

[2011] EWCA Civ 905

The Court of Appeal handed down judgment last week in a public law case concerning the application of the principles of substantial compliance to the apparently mandatory duties of local authorities to use prescribed traffic signs and road markings.

This was an appeal against a decision of Bean J to reject a judicial review of the Parking Adjudicator’s decision in a test case concerning the effect of alleged defects in traffic signs and road markings on the liability to pay the penalty charge (a parking ticket). The approach of the Parking Adjudicator was again upheld.

The judgment applies the law on substantial compliance to the issue of defective signs and lines. It considered the divergent lines of authority drawn to the Court’s attention by the Parking Adjudicator. Doubts were expressed by the Court of Appeal about a line of authority developed by the courts in cases where the offence consists of the failure to comply with an indication given on a traffic sign (speeding offences, for example). The recent decision of Ouseley J in Moss v KPMG [2010] EWHC 2923 (Admin) was held to be wrongly decided insofar as that case followed Davies v Heatley [1971] R.T.R. 145. The Court of Appeal held that it was difficult to reconcile the strict approach in Davies v Heatley with the modern approach to statutory interpretation and substantial compliance exemplified by R v Soneji [2006] 1 A.C. 340.

The Appellants’ submission that any departure, other than one which was trivial, from the definition of a “controlled parking zone” in regulation 4 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 invalidated the entire controlled parking zone was rejected. In any event, it accepted the Parking Adjudicator’s submission that the original adjudicator had made findings of fact that all alleged defects in signs and lines fell within the de minimis principle.

Furthermore, the test to be applied in order to decide whether an irregularity is trivial was whether it could have misled a road user as to the significance of the road sign. This was the test applied by the original adjudicator, whose decision was therefore upheld.

The decision of the Court of Appeal brings to an end a long-running case which originally disposed of a challenge to the independence of the Parking Adjudicator under Article 6 ECHR.

Ian Rogers appeared throughout the proceedings for the Parking Adjudicator, instructed by the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Monckton Chambers will have a strong presence on the London 2012 Pro Bono sports advocacy service, having had 3 members of chambers elected.  Paul Harris QC, Elisa Holmes and Fiona Banks were elected to offer free legal representation for accredited athletes, coaches as well as National Olympic Committees and International Federations during the 2012 Olympics.

 

Chemistree Homecare Ltd & anor v Teva Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2011] EWHC 1877 (Ch)

On 4 July 2011, Mr Justice Mann refused an application brought by Chemistree, a homecare provider/group of pharmacies for an interim mandatory injunction requiring the pharmaceutical company Teva to supply it with 1200 packs of Copaxone (a patented drug licensed for treating certain forms of multiple sclerosis) pending trial. Chemistree said it required that amount of Copaxone not only for its UK patients but also to ensure the success of its new online Europe wide prescription dispensing service. The UK price for Copaxone is significantly cheaper than that in many other EU Member States. Chemistree argued that Teva’s refusal to supply it with the full amount sought was an abusive refusal to supply contrary to Article 102 TFEU/ the Chapter II prohibition in the Competition Act 1998. Chemistree also relied on two non-competition arguments, namely that the refusal was contrary to Article 56 and/or Article 34 TFEU as it restricts Chemistree’s ability  to provide its EU dispensing service between Member States and that it put Teva in breach of the public supply obligation in Regulation 8(1)(b) of the Medicines for Human Use Regulations 2005, implementing Article 81 of the Medicines Directive 2001/83.

The Judge found that Chemistree’s case on abuse of a dominant position was arguable although on the material before him  “not obviously strong“. In reaching this conclusion he considered and applied the judgment of the European Court of Justice in Greek Glaxo [2008] ECR I-7139. He reached the same conclusion on the TFEU provisions and described the Article 81 point as “not promising”.

On 18 July Mann J ordered an expedited trial on liability which has been fixed to come on in the week commencing 13 February 2012.

Christopher Vajda QC and Ronit Kreisberger, instructed by Charles Russell, acted for Teva.

 

The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg has heard a defence of the Directive integrating international aviation into the EU emissions trading system (EU-ETS), from the European Union, six Member States including the UK, and an international coalition of environmental organisations.

The coalition of environmental organisations (which consisted of two US-based organisations, the Environmental Defense Fund and Earthjustice, as well as Europe-based WWF-UK, the European Federation for Transport & Environment, and the Aviation Environment Federation), intervened a judicial review brought by several US airlines – United, Continental and American – and their trade association, the Air Transport Association of America (ATA), in order to defend Europe’s right to tackle carbon emissions from aircraft that fly into and out of Europe.  The European Court of Justice, on a preliminary reference from the High Court, heard arguments on 5 July on whether the Directive was compatible with public international law.

The Advocate General will deliver her opinion on the case on 6 October 2011, with a final judgment of the Court to follow at a later date.

The environmental groups are represented by Jon Turner QC and Laura Elizabeth John.

Please click below for more information on:
Jon Turner QC
Laura Elizabeth John

By decision of 28 June 2011, communicated to the parties on 1 July 2011 the Supreme Court has declared inadmissible the application by Mobilx for permission to appeal out of time against the MTIC VAT fraud decision of the Court of Appeal in Mobilx Ltd & Ors v HM Revenue & Customs [2010] EWCA Civ 517. Philip Moser of Monckton Chambers acted for HMRC in its submissions to the Supreme Court.

This brings to an end the series of post-Kittel MTIC test cases which began with Calltel & Opto v HMRC [2007] UKVAT 20266 and in the course of which Melanie Hall QC, Philip Moser, Fiona Banks and the late Ian Hutton of Monckton Chambers had all acted for the successful Commissioners.

For further information, our case note can be found here.

Please click below for more information on:
Philip Moser QC

The Court of Appeal handed down judgment today upholding legislation which will prohibit the sale of tobacco from vending machines.

It rejected appeals brought by a subsidiary of Imperial Tobacco and members of the cigarette vending machine industry. They argued that the legislation was unlawful in that it contravened the free movement of goods provisions of EU law (Article 34 TFEU) and property rights protected by Article 1 Protocol 1 of the ECHR.

The majority of the Court of Appeal (the Master of the Rolls and Arden LJ, Laws LJ dissenting) held that the legislation fell within the broad margin of appreciation accorded in the field of public health and was proportionate. In doing so, they upheld the decision of the President of the Queen’s Bench Division who had dismissed the application for judicial review brought against the Secretary of State for Health.

On 27 June, in a further ruling, the Court unanimously refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and dismissed an application for interim relief to delay the commencement of the legislation, which enters into force on 1 October 2011.

Beginning on 17 October 2011, the Administrative Court will hear, over five days, the tobacco industry’s applications for judicial review of the primary and secondary legislation prohibiting the display of tobacco products in shops. Among the Claimants are Imperial Tobacco, British American Tobacco, JTI/Gallaher and Philip Morris.

Nicholas Paines QC and Ian Rogers appeared for the Secretary of State for Health in the Court of Appeal and in the High Court. They also appear for the Secretary of State in the tobacco display prohibition litigation.

On 8 June 2011, Ian Rogers appeared for the United Kingdom at the oral hearing in a challenge to the Norwegian tobacco display prohibition, heard in the EFTA Court in Luxembourg (Philip Morris v Norway Case E-16/10, judgment is awaited). .

To read the Lawyer’s article, please click here.

Please click below for more information on Ian Rogers

Monckton member George Peretz has co-authored the latest edition of the Blackstone’s Guide to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

The new edition of this Guide provides a comprehensive overview of the FOI Act, combined with comment and analysis on the effect of the legislation.  It incorporates and discusses the case law and decisions emerging from the Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal/First-tier Tribunal, and the High Court, including Her Majesty’s Treasury v ICO, British Union for the Abolition of Anti Vivisection v Home Office and ICO, and Home Office and MOJ v ICO, as well as relevant decisions of the Scottish Information Commissioner.  It also includes analysis of the replacement of the Information Tribunal by the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) and the Upper Tribunal.

Up-to-date with all changes since the publication of the previous edition, and containing a fully updated copy of the Act, this is an essential purchase for all those involved in receiving requests for access under the Act.

George has advised public and private clients on data protection and freedom of information issues.  He is on the Treasury Solicitor’s panel of Counsel who act for the Government in FOI cases.  He acted for the complainant in the early, and still leading, Information Tribunal case of Bellamy v Information Commissioner (disclosability of legal advice relied on by the DTI): recent cases include Keene v Information Commissioner and Central Office of Information (commercially sensitive information) and Dunn v Information Commissioner and Department of Communities and Local Government (lawyer/client privilege and Law Officers’ advice).

For further information and to purchase this title, please click here.

Please click below for more information on:
George Peretz

The disguised remuneration rules to be introduced under the Finance Act 2011 are acknowledged by the Government to be complex.  The legislation is deliberately drafted to catch more than the Government intended, namely EBTs and EFURBs considered to be abusive.   Although numerous exclusions seek to allow normal business activity to continue unhindered, businesses will need to check they are not caught by the new rules.   The rules are expected to produce some inequitable results.  The attached note seeks to provide a guide to the new rules, with some analysis.  The note is based on the draft rules as amended at the Committee stage.  Once the Finance Bill becomes law later this summer, the note will be updated.

To read the article, please click here

Please click below for more information on:
Tarlochan Lall

Paul Harris QC, after successfully arguing in the High Court last December that the striking-off order relating to Steph Brennan was defective for lack of reasoning, succeeded at the remittal before the Health Professions Council in persuading the Panel to reduce the severity of the sanction to a professional caution.

In April 2009 Steph Brennan ran onto a rugby pitch in his capacity as a professional physiotherapist for Harlequins RFC and gave a player a fake blood capsule in order to feign an injury. This notorious episode and its aftermath became known as “Bloodgate” and rocked the rugby world. Dean Richards, the team coach, was banned for three years from rugby. Wendy Chapman, the doctor who deliberately cut the player as part of the deceitful coverup of the false injury, was given a caution to lie on her professional record, but allowed to continue practising. Steph Brennan, however, was given a 2 year ban from rugby and struck off his professional register altogether.

Unable to continue his new appointment as physiotherapist for the England Rugby team, and indeed faced with an end to his career, Steph Brennan turned to a fresh legal team consisting of Paul Harris QC and Stephen Hornsby of Davenport Lyons in order to seek a more proportionate remedy.

Paul Harris QC argued successfully before the High Court that the striking off order was unnecessary in the circumstances to protect the public and, first on an interim basis, and then on a final basis, that order was set aside as disproportionate by the High Court. In January 2011 the matter of correct sanction was ordered to be remitted back to the professional body for physiotherapists, the Health Professions Council (HPC).

Yesterday in London, Paul Harris QC, in reliance on the High Court judgment and following a fresh hearing, succeeded in persuading the same Panel of the HPC who had struck Steph Brennan off the register in September 2010 that the proportionate remedy in the circumstances was not a striking off, nor even a period of suspension, but was instead a caution to lie on Steph Brennan’s professional record for a period of 5 years. In this way, the last leg of the unsavoury “Bloodgate” saga has finally been brought to a just conclusion.

Steph Brennan paid tribute to the performance of his Silk with the following words:

“From the minute I met Paul Harris I knew I had hired the right barrister. His personable, confident and professional demeanour was an immediate comfort during what was a very unsettled time. He provided a clear message of how he would like to take my case forward. As someone with no experience in legal matters this was a major relief to me.

I made some huge mistakes in my capacity as a Sports Physiotherapist. Before Paul’s help, these were going to mean the end of my career. I now have a second chance to make amends for these mistakes and to repay my profession for my stupidity. I will be eternally grateful to Paul for giving me this opportunity. I simply could not ask for anything more.”

Please click below for more information on:
Paul Harris QC