In a decision released yesterday the First-tier Tribunal upheld an appeal by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) against a decision by the Information Commissioner (IC) under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) that had ordered disclosure in full of a briefing to the Prime Minister in late 2011 on the financial situation of Thomas Cook.  By the time of the hearing, the BIS had agreed that much of the information could be disclosed, and IC agreed (on the basis of information not available to him at the time of his decision) that some of the information which remained in dispute was subject to a statutory restriction on disclosure and therefore was subject to an absolute exemption under FOIA. 

In relation to other parts of the briefing,  BIS argued that disclosure would prejudice Thomas Cook’s commercial interests (s.43 of FOIA) and that that damage outweighed the public interest in disclosure; it also argued that factual information obtained from Thomas Cook was subject to a duty of confidence so that the absolute exemption in section 41 FOIA applied. 

The Tribunal agreed with BIS that redactions should be made in the information disclosed.  It accepted that factual information in the briefing about Thomas Cook was obtained from it in confidence and that there was no sufficient public interest justification for breaching that confidence.  It also accepted evidence from Thomas Cook and from the Civil Aviation Authority (which has regulatory responsibility for Thomas Cook) that disclosure of information in the form of commentary from civil servants about Thomas Cook’s financial situation in 2011, even some time after Thomas Cook had been restructured, would be likely to prejudice its interests: it noted the volatility of the travel industry and its vulnerability to any adverse publicity. 

Thomas Cook was a major employer and any difficulty it got into could harm the taxpayer given that the Government guaranteed the ATOL scheme that insures customers against failure by holiday providers. Those factors overall outweighed the public interest in fully understanding the briefing given to the Prime Minister about the financial situation of a major company.

George Peretz QC acted for BIS: Laura Elizabeth John acted for the IC.  

 

The High Court (Mrs. Justice Andrews) has granted Greenpeace permission to challenge the UK’s failure to properly implement the EU’s new Common Fisheries Policy (“CFP”).

In December 2013, the EU legislature adopted a new regulation reforming the CFP, in particular by requiring Member States to allocate fish quotas based on environmental, economic and social criteria.

Greenpeace claims that the new regulation means that the UK is obliged to modify its current method of allocating fish quotas which is primarily based on historical fishing records from 1994-1996. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has taken a decision that the UK’s method of allocating fish quotas is compatible with the new regulation. The High Court has permitted Greenpeace to challenge the lawfulness of that decision under EU law.

The case has received the following press coverage:

• BBC
• BBC Radio 4 Today
• Independent

Further information can also be found on the Greenpeace blog.

Kassie Smith QC and James Bourke are acting for Greenpeace, instructed by Harrison Grant.

Permission was granted yesterday by the High Court for a leapfrog appeal of a preliminary issue in Moreno v Motor Insurers Bureau [2015] EWHC 1002 (QB).  The preliminary issue will now proceed directly to the Supreme Court.

The Claimant was injured by an uninsured driver whilst on holiday in Greece and sought compensation from the MIB.  While the MIB has admitted liability, the dispute concerns whether the applicable rules to assess quantum are those of England and Wales or of Greece.  Giving judgment at the first instance, Gilbart J considered that he was bound by the ruling in Jacobs v Motor Insurers Bureau [2010] EWCA Civ 1208 to the effect that compensation would be determined under domestic rules.  These are more beneficial to the Claimant.  However he noted that there was force in arguments that Jacobs was wrongly decided in the light of the Rome II Regulations.

Granting a certificate pursuant to section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969, Gilbart J noted that the Supreme Court had previously given permission to hear the issue in Jacobs but that the appeal was not proceeded with.  He held that it was an important issue which would affect a substantial number of claims.  Their resolution would be delayed if the matter were to first come to the Court of Appeal.

Citation: [2015] EWHC 1142 (QB)

Related barristers: Daniel Beard QC

Please click to view the Moreno v MIB judgment.

The High Court has today dismissed an application by MasterCard to strike out claims made by Tesco Stores in relation to interchange fees.  MasterCard argued that the claimants form part of a single undertaking with Tesco Bank which issues MasterCard cards and are hence precluded from claiming damages by the principle of ex turpi non causa or illegality.  Asplin J dismissed the application, on the basis that a number of issues in the case were unsuitable for disposal on a summary basis.  The judgment contains interesting observations on the legal principles relating to single undertakings and the defence of ex turpi.

Tim Ward QC and Rob Williams acted for the successful claimants.

Please click to view the full Tesco Stores Ltd and Ors v MasterCard judgment.

 

The Western Sahara Campaign UK was granted permission for judicial review yesterday against the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC).

Western Sahara Campaign UK works to protect the rights of the people of Western Sahara. The UK based campaign group claim that products imported under a trade agreement with Morocco actually originate from West Sahara.

The case raises important points of EU Law and public international law.

In the claim against DEFRA, the Western Sahara Campaign UK is challenging the lawfulness of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between Morocco and the EU (or, alternatively, the manner of its implementation).

In the claim against HMRC, the Western Sahara Campaign UK is challenging the lawfulness of the manner in which the Association Agreement has been implemented by the European Union and its Member States.

Permission for Judicial Review was granted on all grounds in both cases by Mr. Justice Walker.

The case has received the following press coverage:

• Guardian

Conor McCarthy is junior counsel for the Claimant, instructed by Leigh Day.

A team including members of Monckton Chambers were awarded Litigation of the Year – Cartel Prosecution at the GCR awards.

The award was granted for the National Grid follow on litigation, in which Jon Turner QC, Daniel Beard QC, Laura Elizabeth John and Ligia Osepciu were instructed.

For more information, please click here.

 

 

After the General Election, an In/Out Referendum may be held on UK membership of the EU. If the British electorate votes to leave the EU, the legal implications would be very significant. The issues would affect governments of the EU (including the UK) , businesses, lawyers  and individuals. Yet there has been comparatively little attention paid to a topic that could have such major impacts.

Monckton Chambers is one of London’s best-known sets of chambers working in the EU Law field.

Yesterday, Christopher Muttukumaru CB, former General Counsel to the UK Department for Transport and Legal Director across a number of other departments within the UK Government, with ultimate responsibility for providing strategic advice directly to Ministers, and a member of Monckton Chambers, gave a lecture to the Dutch Academy of Legislation on the Legal Implications of British Exit. He covered issues such as:

1. Options for the UK at the EU level;
2. Implications for other EU governments;
3. The meaning of Article 50/TEU;
4. The domestic legal and constitutional implications in the UK;
5. The questions that businesses and lawyers need to address.

Also, Ian Rogers QC will be delivering a guest lecture at the Central European University in Budapest, Hungary on Friday 24 April 2015 for The Department of Legal Studies and the Center for European Union Research, entitled Exit Stage Right: Human Rights, “Brexit” and EU law after the UK General Election. The lecture will be Chaired by Sejal Parmar, Assistant Professor, Department of Legal Studies.

[2015] UKIPTrib 13_132-H

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal has upheld a claim by Sami al Saadi alleging that his right to legal professional privilege was not respected by the Security and Intelligence Services. The Tribunal directed the destruction of two documents held by GCHQ. No determination in favour of the Claimants was made in other claims raising similar issues.

The full judgment and determination can be read here.

Edenred (Group UK) Limited v Her Majesty’s Treasury and others [2015] EWCA Civ 326

The Court of Appeal has today handed down judgment in the public procurement case of Edenred (Group UK) Limited v Her Majesty’s Treasury and others upholding Andrews J’s decision in favour of the Government (read the first instance decision here).

This was the appeal in an expedited case on whether the way in which the new Government policy of Tax-Free Childcare is proposed to be delivered, by HMRC working with NS&I, is lawful under domestic and EU public procurement legislation.

The Chancellor, with whom Underhill LJ and King LJ concurred, held that a proposed memorandum of understanding between HMRC and NS&I was not a “public services contract” and that the work that NS&I will require under its outsourcing contract with Atos (the contractor who had previously won a tender to provide NS&I’s back office functions) did not amount to a material variation of the Atos contract. The Court of Appeal therefore held there was no breach of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 or Article 56 TFEU.

Philip Moser QC, Ewan West and Anneliese Blackwood appeared on behalf of Her Majesty’s Treasury, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and NS&I.

Please click to read the Edenred v HMTreasury Court of Appeal judgment.

 

The Supreme Court will hear an appeal today (Thursday 26 March 2015) on the question of whether the rule which suspends payability of Disability Living Allowance for disabled children in hospital after 84 days is compatible with Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Ian Wise QC and Steve Broach act for the Appellant, instructed by Mitchell Woolf of Scott-Moncrieff and Associates.

The appeal concerns a child, Cameron Mathieson, with complex disabilities who sadly died during the proceedings. Cameron’s needs meant that he required hospital care regularly throughout his life. For one period of hospitalisation the benefit withdrawn under the rule challenged in the appeal amounted to around £7,000. The loss of the benefit had significant consequences for Cameron and his family. His father Craig Mathieson is therefore pursuing the appeal both for the family and the roughly 500 families a year with severely disabled children in a similar situation.

The appeal is supported by two national charities, Contact a Family and The Children’s Trust. These charities have been campaigning against the rule under the banner ‘Stop the DLA Takeaway’. The charities have produced evidence to show a large majority of families provide the same or greater levels of care to their children when they are in hospital and experience substantial additional costs during these times. Information on the campaign and the charities’ response to the appeal was available from the Contact a Family website.