The Competition Appeal Tribunal has issued a ruling declaring that Ofcom erred in its Business Connectivity Market Review (BCMR), and quashing the market definition decisions upon which Ofcom’s “dark fibre” remedy was based.

In its BCMR Statement, which was published in April 2016, Ofcom defined various markets for the provision of “business connectivity” services, used by companies to carry data between locations. Ofcom defined a single product market for contemporary interface symmetric broadband origination (“CISBO”) services of all bandwidths; and four separate relevant geographic markets: the Central London Area; the London Periphery; Hull; and the Rest of the UK. Ofcom also made determinations concerning the extent of BT’s core network. Ofcom found that BT had significant market power (“SMP”) for CISBO services outside Central London and Hull, and proposed a package of remedies including a so-called passive remedy allowing Communications Providers to lease only the fibre element of the leased lines from BT, allowing them to attach equipment of their own choosing at either end to “light” the fibre. This remedy was referred to as Dark Fibre Access (“DFA”) and was to be implemented in October 2017.

BT appealed on the grounds that Ofcom had erred in its Product Market Definition, in that Ofcom had failed to identify a separate product market for Very High Bandwidth (“VHB”) services of 1 Gbit/s and above, in which BT does not have SMP. BT also argued that Ofcom had erred in its approach to the Geographic Market Definition, and in its determination of the boundary between the (competitive) core segments of BT’s network and other terminating segments. BT further argued that the dark fibre remedy was disproportionate, including because it would undermine infrastructure based competition for VHB services from providers such as Virgin Media and CityFibre.

A hearing took place in April-May 2017 over sixteen hearing days, in which the Tribunal heard BT’s arguments in relation to market definition and the competitive core. Yesterday, the CAT issued a ruling on those issues. The CAT has unanimously decided that Ofcom erred in defining a single product market, in concluding that the UK outside London (and Hull) comprises a single geographical market, and in its determination of the boundary between core and terminating parts of BT’s network. Those decisions will be quashed and remitted to Ofcom for reconsideration. The CAT is still preparing its reasoned judgment for its conclusions, which will be handed down in due course.

The imposition of the DFA remedy was contingent on the correctness of Ofcom’s market definition analysis. A further hearing of the remedies issues raised by BT had been scheduled for September 2017, to allow those issues to be considered, if appropriate, before the implementation date of the DFA remedy. Given that Ofcom’s market definition will now need to be reconsidered, the hearing has been vacated.

Daniel Beard QC, Robert Palmer, Ligia Osepciu and David Gregory represented BT.

Josh Holmes QC represented Ofcom.

Philip Woolfe represented a group of communications providers including TalkTalk, Vodafone, Colt and Hutchison 3G.

The ruling has already been reported by the Financial Times and the Daily Telegraph.

In a decision released on 12 July 2017, the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) has dismissed the BAT group’s EU law, ECHR and common law challenges to the restitution interest tax provisions of Part 8C of the Corporation Tax Act 2010.  Part 8C, introduced in October 2015, imposes a charge to corporation tax at the rate of 45% on restitution interest (essentially, compound and other interest awarded against the Crown in claims for restitution of unlawfully levied tax or tax paid under a mistake of law) arising to a company.  The Part 8C charge is ring-fenced and not capable of being offset by reliefs, etc.

The FTT (Judge Berner) held that the provisions were compatible with (a) BAT’s directly effective EU law rights (including the principles of effectiveness, protection of legitimate expectations and proportionality, and rights derived from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights); (b) BAT’s Convention rights under the ECHR (including under A1P1 and Article 6); and (c) BAT’s common law rights.

The decision is available here.

Andrew Macnab and Jack Williams represented HM Revenue & Customs (led by Alison Foster QC (39 Essex Chambers) and Philip Baker QC (Field Court Tax Chambers); alongside Aparna Nathan (Devereux Chambers) and Elizabeth Wilson (Pump Court Tax Chambers)).

In  R (E) v London Borough of Islington [2017] EWHC 1440 (Admin) the Administrative Court has held that a local authority is liable in damages to a young child (E) for breach of her human right to education under Article 2 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (A2P1). The Court (Ben Emmerson QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) also found that the local authority’s assessment of E’s care needs was vitiated by misguided reasoning and therefore unlawful.

The successful education claim marks the first occasion on which the English Courts have upheld a damages claim based on a breach of A2P1, after two Supreme Court judgments as a result of which such claims had failed (A v Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School [2006] 2 AC 363 and A v Essex County Council (National Autistic Society intervening) [2011] AC 280; [2010] UKSC 33).  In the present case, E’s claim concerned three separate periods during which (the Court held) Islington was responsible for providing her with full-time education but – for one reason or another – failed to secure it. Notably, during one of those periods, Islington had accommodated E and her family in temporary homelessness accommodation in another London borough, and yet the Court was satisfied that Islington bore primary responsibility for the breach of E’s A2P1 rights during that period also.  The case will therefore be of interest not only because it is the first example of a successful damages claim based on A2P1 in this jurisdiction, but also because of its implications for local authority’s duties towards homeless children of compulsory school age, including those that they elect to accommodate in a different local authority district.

Following a contested hearing on consequential matters, E was also awarded 100% of her costs, and successfully opposed the local authority’s application for permission to appeal. Having found that E is entitled to damages by way of just satisfaction under section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the Court has also set down a procedure for the determination of quantum.

Monckton’s Ian Wise QC and Michael Armitage acted for the successful Claimant throughout the proceedings, instructed by Rebekah Carrier of Hopkin Murray Beskine solicitors.

In a high-profile judgment DA and others v SSWP handed down today, the High Court (Collins J) has declared that the government’s controversial “benefit cap” policy is unlawful. An earlier version of the policy was considered by the Supreme Court in SG, in which the Supreme Court narrowly (by a 3-2 majority) ruled that the cap did not unlawfully discriminate against women, but also held (by a different 3-2 majority) that the cap contravened the UK’s obligations under Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child as a result of its drastic impact on children. In today’s judgment, the High Court has not only re-affirmed that the cap on benefits breaches the UK’s international obligations in respect of children, but that the revised version of the policy also discriminates against lone parents of children under two, as well as against such children in their own right.

The judicial review challenge, brought by four lone parent families, concerned the reduced benefit cap introduced by the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016. The revised benefit cap drastically reduced housing benefits, leaving lone parent families across the country unable to afford basic life necessities to care for their children. Mr Justice Collins has ruled that the application of the revised benefit cap to lone parents with children under two amounts to unlawful discrimination and that “real damage” is being caused to the Claimants and families like theirs across the country. Upon considering the impact of the benefit cap, Mr Justice Collins concluded that “real misery is being caused to no good purpose.”

The government has been granted permission to appeal.

The judgment has already attracted substantial coverage in the print and broadcast media – The Independent, BBC.

A press release summarising the judgment is available here.

Monckton’s Ian Wise QC and Michael Armitage acted (along with Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC of Doughty Street Chambers) for the successful Claimants, instructed by Rebekah Carrier of Hopkin Murray Beskine solicitors. Ian Wise QC also acted for the Claimants in the SG case.

To read the case note written by Imogen Proud, please click here.