The shortlists for these prestigious awards have been revealed and we are pleased to have been nominated as ‘Set of the Year’ for Competition and EU.
Additionally, in the Competition and EU category, Jon Turner QC is listed for ‘Silk of the Year’ and Paul Harris ‘Junior of the Year’.
The awards will be announced on 30 September 2010 at the London Hilton Hotel.
Please click below for more information on:
Jon Turner QC
Paul Harris QC
The International Law Association’s 74th Conference is being held in the Hague from 15 to 20 August 2010 at the invitation of the Netherlands Society of International Law, to mark the latter’s centenary. Piers Gardner of Monckton Chambers joined a distinguished panel of academic and practitioner speakers from Australia, the Netherlands, Ukraine and USA in the conference’s session devoted to ‘Integrating Human Rights in Civil Cases’, which compared reliance on human rights based arguments in commercial arbitrations, international proceedings and civil claims before domestic courts. Piers spoke on the protection of the rights of and in companies by the European Court of Human Rights and compared the rights enjoyed by companies themselves with the rights of shareholders and other stakeholders in respect of a company’s affairs, especially in the event of insolvency, liquidation and receivership.
Please click below for more information on:
Piers Gardner
The International Law Association’s 74th Conference is being held in the Hague from 15 to 20 August 2010 at the invitation of the Netherlands Society of International Law, to mark the latter’s centenary. Piers Gardner of Monckton Chambers joined a distinguished panel of academic and practitioner speakers from Australia, the Netherlands, Ukraine and USA in the conference’s session devoted to ‘Integrating Human Rights in Civil Cases’, which compared reliance on human rights based arguments in commercial arbitrations, international proceedings and civil claims before domestic courts. Piers spoke on the protection of the rights of and in companies by the European Court of Human Rights and compared the rights enjoyed by companies themselves with the rights of shareholders and other stakeholders in respect of a company’s affairs, especially in the event of insolvency, liquidation and receivership.
Please click below for more information on:
Piers Gardner
John Wilkins (Motor Engineers) Ltd and others v HMRC [2010] EWCA Civ 923
These appeals are part of a growing area of litigation in which taxpayers who have over paid VAT claim entitlement to compound interest rather than simple interest. In each of these appeals, the appellant motor trader initially claimed interest under s 78 VATA 1994 and received simple interest. Claims for compound interest were later made between 10 months and two years after the initial claims for interest and were refused.
The group of dealers challenged the previous decision of the Upper Tribunal, which had ruled (1) that their claims for compound interest were made outside the relevant time-limits and (2) that s. 78 VATA 1994 could not be interpreted so as to require the payment of compound interest.
Today (Friday 30 July) the Court of Appeal decided that those dealers who had made their appeals to the VAT Tribunal (which on 1 April 2009 became the Tax Tribunal) had done so in time under rule 4 of the VAT Tribunal rules, which states that claims have to be made within 30 days of a disputed decision.
The Court of Appeal only dealt with the time-issue and a further hearing will be necessary to determine whether or not taxpayers are entitled to compound interest.
The Court of Appeal was split in its decision. Lord Justice Laws and Lord Justice Sullivan agreed with the appellant motor traders that s 78 VATA 1994 does not explicitly preclude the making of a second claim for interest within the 3 year (now 4 year) time limit permitted by s 78(11); accordingly, the disputed decision in each case was the Commissioners’ letter refusing to pay compound interest, and the appeals were brought within 30 days of that decision in each case. The majority considered that some repeated claims could be dismissed on the grounds of being abusive. Lord Justice Etherton agreed with the Commissioners that the second claims raised no new matters and that the disputed decision in each case was in substance the original decision to pay simple interest.
Peter Mantle and Philip Wolfe were instructed by the Commissioners for HMRC.
Please click below for more information on:
Peter Mantle
Philip Woolfe
Case-CO/5018/2009 – Ofcom have successfully resisted a claim for judicial review by ICO Global Communications (Holdings) Ltd (ICO) of a decision of Ofcom to write to request that the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) remove ICO’s global medium earth orbit (MEO) satellite system (ICO-P) from the Master International Frequency Register (MIFR).
Ofcom represents the UK in international bodies, including the ITU, having communications functions. In particular, Ofcom has a role in ensuring that spectrum and orbital positions are used efficiently and that competition, innovation and growth in communications services is not hindered to the detriment of consumers and businesses. In this case Ofcom were concerned with the failure to bring the ICO-P satellite network into use in accordance with its notified characteristics.
Christopher Vajda QC and Ben Rayment were instructed by Ofcom.
To read the judgment, please click here.
Please click below for more information on:
Ben Rayment
O’Brien v Ministry of Justice [2010] UKSC 34
The Supreme Court decided to make a reference to the ECJ in a case concerning the statutory exclusion of part-time fee-paid judges from the scope of the Part-time Workers Regulations 2000 (“the Regulations”), which implement the Part-time Workers Directive (“PTWD”). Salaried judges (full-time and part-time) receive pensions, but part-time fee-paid judges do not.
The appeal raises the issue of the distinction between an office-holder and an employee and is therefore of general interest to employment law practitioners.
Interest for EU law practitioners lies in the conflict between, on the one hand, the freedom left by a directive to Member States to define terms which determine its scope and, on the other hand, the need for uniform interpretation of the directive. Rights under the PTWD are granted to part-time workers who have “an employment contract or employment relationship as defined by the law, collective agreement or practice in force in each Member State”.
The Council of Immigration Judges (“CIJ”) instructed Ian Rogers to intervene in the Supreme Court by way of written submissions. He argued that the PTWD and Regulations should be interpreted with regard to analogous fixed-term workers legislation. In the latter context, the ECJ had held in Impact that the relevant directive was directly effective. Having had its attention drawn to this authority, the Ministry of Justice conceded that the rights accorded by the PTWD were also directly effective.
He also argued that the ECJ’s judgment in Del Cerro Alonso limited the breadth of discretion left to Member States. The Ministry and the Court of Appeal relied heavily on Wippel v Peek, but the Supreme Court accepted the CIJ’s argument that the part of the Advocate-General’s opinion, on which the Ministry relied, had not been adopted by the ECJ. The CIJ’s argument also drew analogies with parallel concepts in the Working Time Directive jurisprudence (e.g. Jaeger). The Supreme Court held that Del Cerro Alonso represented the “high point” of Mr O’Brien’s case.
The following questions were referred to the ECJ:-
(1) Is it for national law to determine whether or not judges as a whole are “workers who have an employment contract or employment relationship” within the meaning of clause 2.1 of the [PTWD], or is there a Community norm by which this matter must be determined?
(2) If judges as a whole are workers who have an employment contract or employment relationship within the meaning of clause 2.1 of the [PTWD], is it permissible for national law to discriminate (a) between full-time and part-time judges, or (b) between different kinds of part-time judges in the provision of pensions?
Ian Rogers appeared for the Council of Immigration Judges.
Please click below for more information on:
Ian Rogers
The General Court (Case T-342/07 and Case T-411/07) upheld two decisions of the EU Commission in respect of the long standing dispute between Ryanair and Aer Lingus as to the future ownership and control of the smaller airline. The Commission had considered that the acquisition would significantly impede effective competition, in particular as a result, firstly, of the creation of a dominant position on 35 routes to and from Dublin, Shannon and Cork, and, secondly, of the creation or strengthening of a dominant position on a further 15 routes. It therefore declared the concentration incompatible with the common market as it would have harmed consumers by removing this competition and creating a monopoly or a dominant position on the routes operated by both parties.
Ryanair based their application to annul the decision on several grounds including the effects of the liberalisation of the EU airline passenger market on market entry and thus the inability of the merged group to raise price and reduce quality, on the weakness of Aer Lingus and its lack of sustainability as a small regional airline and on Ryanair’s willingness to provide commitments more than necessary to meet any perceived adverse effects on competition. The General Court held that in its judgment the Commission had not erred in its analysis of competition, including competition between the two airlines on origin and destination markets, that the combined market shares were very high, that each was the other’s closest rival and that there were barriers to entry on the relevant markets. It also confirmed the Commission’s decision that the commitments were not sufficient.
In a separate judgment the General Court confirmed the Commission’s decision that the acquisition by Ryanair of a minority stake in Aer LIngus did not amount to control within the meaning of the EU Merger Regulation and that the Commission’s powers, when they found that a proposed acquisition would significantly impede competition, did not extend to divestment of the whole or part of a shareholding that fell below that of control. There was ample evidence that Aer Lingus continued to act independently of Ryanair.
Please click below for more information on:
John Swift QC
Leading Competition law set Monckton Chambers has formally launched a Merger Control Group, offering the full range of merger control services to its client base.
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.
The recent addition of Alistair Lindsay, who joined the 50 strong set last October from Allen & Overy where he was a Partner for seven years, has considerably strengthened the set’s merger control capabilities. Lindsay comments as follows
“We’re now offering a full merger control service, including dealing with any appeals and managing multi-jurisdictional filings.”
The new service will be targeted to an array of clients including full service law firms but particularly to city and international law firms without a dedicated merger control team in London as well as to General Counsel who can instruct the Bar directly. The set’s Senior Clerk, David Hockney, comments:
“This is new territory for the Bar and reflects the fact that sets now need to think of alternative ways to attract work particularly in light of the forthcoming Legal Services Act. We’re selling an end-to-end service from market-leading practitioners at competitive rates: it’s very compelling.”
The set’s Head of Chambers, Paul Lasok QC commented:
“There’s not many big-ticket deals at the moment because of financing issues and market volatility; but often it’s the smaller transactions that raise the most difficult merger control issues and the current uncertainties about growth and public spending are likely to encourage these.”
Please click below for more information on:
George Peretz
Alistair Lindsay
Ben Rayment
Melanie Hall QC addressed the London Branch of the Chartered Institute of Taxation (ICOT) on Tuesday 29 June speaking on where to draw the line between legitimate planning and abuse. Her talk included an update on Halifax following the recent hearing at the Court of Justice for the European Union of Weald Leasing.
The CIOT has a strong committee structure which carries out original work on such subjects as the study of tax legislation, international relations in the taxation field and tax training.
Please click below for more information on:
Melanie Hall QC
Case C-58/08 – Vodafone and others
This reference was made in proceedings between Vodafone, O2 Europe, T-Mobile, Orange and the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform concerning the validity of provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 717/2007 adopted by the UK and Northern Ireland relating to the prices payable by users of public mobile telephone networks for retail roaming services,
The regulation lays down maximum charges that mobile phone operators may charge for calls made and received by users outside their own network. The regulation also imposes a ceiling for wholesale roaming charges – the price paid by the consumer’s network to the foreign network which that consumer uses.
The leading European mobile telephone operators challenged the validity of the regulation before the High Court. The High Court asked the Court of Justice whether the Community was entitled to adopt the regulation on the basis of Article 95 EC which permits the community to adopt legislative measures in order to approximate the laws of the Member States in cases of disparity or potential disparity capable of obstructing the establishment and functioning of the internal market, and whether, by setting the maximum retail price, the Community legislature had infringed the principles of subsidiarity and/or proportionality.
The Court found that the object of the regulation is to improve the conditions for the functioning of the internal market and that it could be adopted on the basis of Article 95 EC.
With regards the proportionality of the regulation in so far as it does not only lay down ceilings for wholesale charges but also for retail charges, the Court found that maximum retail charges could be considered to be appropriate and necessary for the purpose of protecting consumers against high levels of charges.
The Court examined the regulation in the light of the principle of subsidiarity, according to which the Community may not act unless the Member States are not in a position to achieve the same goal adequately. The Court concluded that, give the interdependence of retail and wholesale charges, the community legislature could legitimately take the view that a common approach at Community level was necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market, thus allowing operators to act within a single coherent regulatory framework.
Jon Turner QC and Tim Ward represented the United Kingdom
Ronit Kreisberger represented Vodafone
Please click below for more information on:
Jon Turner QC
Tim Ward QC
Ronit Kreisberger
