The CMA today announced that it has taken a decision finding an infringement of Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 by Ultra Finishing Limited, a leading supplier of bathroom fittings.  A penalty of £786,668 has been imposed (reduced from £1,032,502 to reflect the compliance programme and early settlement).  The infringement concerned the advertising and setting of prices for online sales.  The CMA had earlier announced the settlement agreement in this case.

In its press release the CMA explains that it has awarded a further 5% discount to Ultra for setting up a compliance programme.  The programme “includes a clear commitment to competition law compliance by the Ultra Board, including an external statement to that effect, which has been published on Ultra’s website. The company will also roll out tailored compliance training for all employees, and has put in place a detailed procedure to identify, assess and mitigate competition law risks. Ultra will review the compliance programme on an annual basis and submit a report on its compliance activities to the CMA each year for the next three years.”  This is a useful indication of the type of compliance programme that the CMA is likely to regard as appropriate in other cases where a discount is sought for setting up such a programme.

The CMA also states that it has issued warnings to other suppliers in the sector for similar practices, and warns that it is prepared to issue further infringement decisions and warnings in future.  In particular, it warns retailers (who were not subjected to any finding of infringement in this case) that they, too, may be fined in future cases of resale price maintenance, and draws attention to its leniency programme.  The CMA’s message is clear: if you are a retailer who pressurises your supplier to “crack down” on online discounting by your competitors, or if you are yourself subjected to such a crackdown, you should go to the CMA – or else you are at risk of being fined.

George Peretz QC advised Ultra Finishing Limited throughout the CMA’s investigation.

 

On 26 April, the Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) announced that Ultra Finishing Limited (“UFL”), a leading manufacturer of bathroom fittings, had agreed to pay a fine of £826,000 under the CMA’s settlement procedures (including a discount conditional on implementing a satisfactory compliance system).  The CMA’s press release is here.

The infringement of the competition rules at issue concerned measures taken by UFL in relation to the pricing of its products on the websites of its online distributors.

The CMA’s press release makes it clear that the CMA is currently focusing on restrictions, such as resale price maintenance and restrictions on advertising discounted prices, that limit the extent of online competition, particularly in consumer products.

George Peretz QC has been advising UFL throughout the investigation.

Monckton barristers Jon Turner QC, Ben Rayment and Julian Gregory have provided an Opinion for Greenpeace and Ecotricity which could have implications for the Government’s plan to build a new nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point.

Hinkley Point C is the first of a new generation of nuclear reactors intended to be built by EDF in the UK.  The UK government has already agreed to provide significant state support for the project by, among other things, guaranteeing a strike price for the electricity produced for a period of 35 years.  That support was classified as state aid and was only authorised by the EU Commission following an investigation after being scaled back (a decision which is in any event under challenge before the European Courts).

The 85% French state-owned EDF has now said that without further state support from the French Government it will not participate in the project.   In their Opinion, the Monckton barristers consider the various packages of financial support reportedly under consideration.  They have advised that any further French state support for Hinkley would likely constitute state aid and would therefore need to be notified to and investigated by the EU Commission.  The Commission would need to take into account its likely impact of the state support on competition in the energy market and other forms of generation, including renewables.

The Opinion, published today, has been covered in the media on both sides of the Channel, including
Sky News
Reuters
Financial Times
The Guardian
Les Echoes

Jon Turner QC, Ben Rayment and Julian Gregory were instructed by Harrison Grant on behalf of Greenpeace and Ecotricity.

In R(Nouazli) v Secretary of State for the Home Office [2016] UKSC 16, the Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to powers which enable persons exercising free movement rights to be detained, pending a decision whether to remove them from the United Kingdom.  Tim Ward QC acted for the Secretary of State.  The case contains an important statement of principle as to the scope of EU discrimination law.

Regulation 24(1) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 permits the detention of person exercising EU free movement rights, if there are reasonable grounds to suspect he is a person who may be removed on (inter alia) public policy grounds. The Appellant was an Algerian national who had formerly been married to a French national, and accordingly enjoyed a right of residence in the UK as an EU family member. He argued that Regulation 24(1) gave rise to discrimination, as no equivalent “pre-detention” power existed in the UK immigration regime which applied to those who were not exercising EU law rights.  The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that third country nationals are not an appropriate comparator for testing discrimination in EU law: such “discrimination” is simply a function of the limited scope of the EU legal order.  Nor was such discrimination contrary to the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The judgment is accordingly of considerable importance in defining the scope of application of EU discrimination law.

The full judgment is available on the Supreme Court’s website (here).

Brendan McGurk was part of the team that successfully defended the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills against a challenge to the lawfulness of a new method by which an industrial training levy is to be calculated and imposed  on the construction industry. The construction levy is imposed on construction employers to raise funds for the training of both the employed and the self-employed workforce in the construction industry. In order to meet concerns within the industry that the basis upon which levy was to be collected on payments made to the self-employed workforce had become too complicated, the Construction Industry Training Board adopted HMRC’s Construction Industry Scheme as the means by which levy would be calculated on payments made to independent contractors. Hudson Contracts Services Limited, an industry-leading labour agency (albeit providing PAYE and payroll services only), sought to contend that the new basis upon which levy is to be calculated and imposed was ultra vires the Industrial Training Act 1982. The three grounds of challenge pursued by Hudson were each dismissed by Kerr J in a judgment that is available here. The case is one of a number of tax judicial reviews on which Brendan is currently acting.

To view the full judgment, please click here.

The High Court has held that a scheme by which a London council ringfenced 20% of available lettings for working households and ‘model tenants’ was discriminatory and unlawful. Steve Broach acted for the claimants in this case, R (H and others) v Ealing LBC [2016] EWHC 841 (Admin).

The claimants were two families (referred to in the judgment as H and others) who together had the ‘protected characteristics’ of disability, age and gender under the Equality Act 2010. As a result of their circumstances the claimants were unable to meet the work requirement of the scheme introduced by the London Borough of Ealing. They also could not be ‘model tenants’ as this only applied to council tenants.

HHJ Waksman QC allowed the challenge to the scheme on all grounds, being that:

1. The scheme unlawfully discriminated against women, disabled and elderly persons contrary to sections 19 and 29 of the Equality Act 2010 and unlawfully discriminated against women, disabled and elderly persons and children of single parent carers contrary to Article 14 ECHR (read with Article 8 ECHR) in relation to the working household provisions.
2. The Scheme unlawfully discriminated against tenants who do not hold council tenancies contrary to Article 14 ECHR (read with Article 8 ECHR) in relation to the model tenant provisions.
3. In adopting and maintaining the Scheme, the Defendant was in breach of its public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
4. In adopting and maintaining the Scheme, the Defendant was in breach of the obligations in respect of the welfare of children imposed by section 11 of the Children Act 2004.

The Judge quashed the scheme, meaning that at least until a replacement scheme is put in place Ealing will not be able to ringfence any properties for these groups. As a result the claimants and other families in their position will be able to bid for all available properties in each bidding round.

The judgment has important implications for all councils with housing responsibilities, particularly London councils who have to manage very high demand for social housing in the face of a very limited supply.

Steve Broach is instructed for the claimants by Hopkin Murray Beskine solicitors.

To read the judgment please click here.