Regina (Oriel Support Ltd) v Commissioners for Revenue and Customs

Peter Mantle has, along with other members, been successfully expanding his practice into direct taxes, adding to his reputation as an indirect tax practioner. The case of Oriel Support Limited was recently decided by the Court of Appeal and has been reported in the Times. Peter succeeded at first instance and before the CA in this test case on when liability for PAYE could be removed from an employer to the person who in fact paid the employees’ wages.

Please click below for more information on:
Peter Mantle

Milk Supplies Limited v Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs [2009] EWHC 503 QB

The High Court has held that a company that used multiple subsidiaries to claim export refunds set aside for small exporters, in circumstances where it had exhausted its own entitlement to refunds, had abused its rights under Community law and was subject to the strict penalties under the Regulation governing the system of export refunds for agricultural products (Regulation (EC) No 800/1999). DEFRA, represented by Rebecca Haynes, successfully opposed the company’s contentions that the artificial practice of diverting exports through subsidiaries was not contrary to the overall objectives of the relevant Community law which, it claimed, was to enable as many exports as possible to be covered by refunds, subject only to the Community’s international obligations under the WTO agreements to cap export aid at an agreed limit. The company further argued that following such cases as Halifax and Weald Leasing there was no basis for applying penalties in cases of abuse of rights and that it was not sufficiently clear that the relevant penalty provisions were intended to apply to abusive practices. DEFRA successfully argued that since the consequence of the application of the abuse of rights doctrine was that there was never any entitlement to the export refunds, it followed that the subsidiaries had over-claimed and that the penalty provisions of the refund system applied. The Court held that as the beneficiary of the money claimed by way of refunds, the company was liable to repay the refunds claimed through its subsidiaries, together with penalties totalling 50% of the amounts claimed and interest.

Please click below for more information on:
Rebecca Haynes

R (on the application of Sovio Wines Ltd) v Food Standards Agency [2009] EWHC 382 (Admin)

The High Court recently upheld the decision of the Food Standards Agency to seize a consignment of partially de-alcoholised wine which was manufactured using an unauthorised oenological process and was labelled as Spanish semi-sparkling wine. Rebecca Haynes, acting for the Agency, successfully defended a judicial review brought on the principal ground that since the Sovio product did not satisfy the definition of semi-sparkling wine contained in the Community Wine Regulation (having an alcohol content of less than 8%), the Agency had no jurisdiction to take action in respect of it. The Court held that the Wine Regulation clearly applied to goods purporting to be wine products and applied a prohibition of the use of the “wine” or “semi-sparkling wine” denomination to any product which failed to meet the Community definition of wine terms. The Claimant also failed to persuade the Court that the Agency was bound by a statement of another public body, Cheshire Trading Standards, erroneously indicating that the labelling was fully compliant with relevant labelling legislation.

For the High Court judgment, please click here.

Please click below for more information on:
Rebecca Haynes

On 4 March, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) handed down judgment in Tesco’s application for review of one of the Competition Commission’s (CC) remedies in its Groceries Report.

Following a two-year inquiry into the grocery sector, the CC had recommended to central government that a ‘competition test’ should be introduced into the planning system. The CAT held that the CC had failed properly to consider certain relevant considerations relating to the costs and benefits of the competition test. The CAT clarified, however, that it had not concluded that the competition test was unreasonable, disproportionate or otherwise inappropriate or unlawful.

The parties have been invited to address the CAT on the question of specific relief at a hearing on 16 March 2009.

Several barristers from Monckton Chambers were involved in the case. Julian Gregory acted for Tesco.

Peter Roth QC, Daniel Beard, Valentina Sloane and Ewan West acted for the Competition Commission.

Tim Ward and Kassie Smith acted for the interveners, Asda and Waitrose respectively.

Please click below for more information on:
Tim Ward QC
Kassie Smith QC
Julian Gregory

Michael Bowsher QC is set to speak at the 15th Annual Federal Procurement Institute in conjunction with the American Bar Association in Chicago on Wednesday 5th March 2009.

Please click below for more information on:
Michael Bowsher QC

RB (Algeria) and another v Home Secretary [2009] UKHL 10

Robert Palmer was junior counsel for the Home Secretary in these appeals, in which the House of Lords found in favour of the Home Secretary on all the points argued, which turned on issues arising principally under Articles 3 and 6 of the ECHR. The appeals arose out of deportation proceedings instituted against two Algerian nationals who the Home Secretary considers are a risk to national security; a third Jordanian nation’s appeal was heard at the same time: he is the Islamist cleric better known as Abu Qatada. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) had dismissed all their appeals.

The House of Lords held that it was permissible for the Home Secretary and SIAC to rely on inter-governmental assurances about the treatment of the deportees after their return to their countries of origin to conclude that they would not (as they would otherwise have been without such assurances) be at risk of torture or inhumane or degrading treatment. The House of Lords also decided that procedures of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission for considering evidence only disclosed to a Special Advocate and not the Appellant himself are not unfair. The case is also important for the conclusion that the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction, on an appeal from SIAC, is limited to questions of law as provided by the statute even in relation to human rights issues; consideration of such issues does not automatically raise questions of law but may (as here) be purely matters of factual assessment for SIAC.

Please click below for more information on:
Robert Palmer

The European Court of Human Rights declared admissible an application by YUKOS Oil Company on 29 January 2009. Details of that decision now released show that the Court has accepted for further examination on their merits YUKOS’ complaints that:

• the company had been taxed unlawfully in respect of liabilities totalling US $37 Bn which were wholly unknown to Russian Law before the Yukos case;
• that this taxation and its enforcement amounted to the disguised expropriation of the company and its assets, and
• that these measures singled the company out for special treatment in a discriminatory way as an abuse of power.

The Court also admitted for further examination that YUKOS’ complaints that the Russian tax proceedings as a whole had been unfair and represented the imposition of retrospective criminal penalties.

In declaring the vast majority of Yukos’ complaints admissible, the Court also rejected the Russian Government’s argument that all these complaints were now moot because Yukos had been made bankrupt and ceased to exist under Russian law. The Court specifically held that Piers Gardner, of Monckton Chambers, who has represented YUKOS before the Court since this application was filed in 2004, continues to be YUKOS’ valid representative in the proceedings.

The Court has requested written submissions from the parties in relation to nine questions and has decided to hold a hearing on the merits.

YUKOS’ underlying dispute concerning the tax liabilities of US$37 Bn and their consequences is the largest dispute by value ever to have been litigated before any court, domestic or international

For the ECtHR judgment, please click here.

Please click below for more information on:
Piers Gardner

Philip Moser has been advising CounterBalance, a coalition of European NGOs, in relation to the European Investment Bank and Case 155/07 Parliament v Council, an ECJ ruling on the Community Guarantee Decision.

On 28th January 2009 Philip Moser gave evidence to an EU select committee on the Community Guarantee and he has assisted in drafting proposed legislative amendments which are currently before the European Parliament.

Please click below for more information on:
Philip Moser QC

The High Court has given judgment in favour of the Home Secretary on an application for Judicial Review concerning the Posted Workers Directive (96/71/EC) and Article 49 EC (the freedom to provide services).

The case of R(Lee Ling Low, Rising Sun Catering, Hot Hot Grill and Bar Ltd and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWHC 35 (Admin) was identified as the lead case for speedy determination, among 23 Judicial Review applications. A further 650 cases had been dealt with in the same manner by the Home Secretary.

The case involved an Irish company entering an agreement to supply catering services to a UK restaurant company. The services were to be provided by third country nationals who were illegally present in the UK and had no right to reside in Ireland. An application was made on behalf of the Irish company, UK company and the third country nationals in this and hundreds of other cases, seeking confirmation of the workers’ status as “posted workers” of the Irish company under Article 49 EC and the principle of derivative rights. It was also argued that the Home Secretary had no current published policy indicating in what circumstances her Department would grant “permission to work” to those persons who are subject to immigration control and who are granted temporary admission.

Article 2 of the Posted Workers Directive defines a “posted worker” as a “worker who, for a limited period, carries out his work in the territory of a member state other than the state in which he normally works”. All parties relied on a series of decisions relating to posted workers and Article 49 in the European Court of Justice, the best known of which is Case C-43/93, Vander Elst, [1994] ECR I-3803.

The Court held that none of the Claimants have any entitlement to rely on Article 49 and the posted workers cases because the third party nationals were not resident in the member state of establishment, Ireland. As the third country nationals were not lawfully resident in Ireland, the Home Secretary’s decisions not to regularise their status and to detain and remove them were lawful and not in breach of EC law. The Court also found that the Claimants’ reliance on Article 49 was an abuse of EC law. Finally, the Court held that there is a transparent and publicly available policy relating to permission to work for those granted temporary admission; and the decisions were in accordance with this policy.

The judgment contains a comprehensive analysis of the case law on posted workers and the “abuse of EC law” doctrine.

The High Court refused the Claimants’ request to refer the case to the European Court of Justice, stating that it had no doubt that the Home Secretary’s submissions were correct in law.

Ian Rogers appeared for the Home Secretary, instructed by the Treasury Solicitor

Please click below for more information on:
Ian Rogers