Advocate General Jääskinen released his opinion today in Case C-85/11 EC v Ireland. He has concluded that the practice of permitting non-taxable persons to be members of a VAT Group does not infringe the Principal VAT Directive or any EU principle. The Irish case was heard at the same time as Case C-86/11 EC v UK  and other similar infraction proceedings brought by the Commission against the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands. The European Court asked for only one opinion to be produced ahead of its judgment on the basis that the same point of principle arises in each case. This opinion therefore applies equally to the VAT Act and HMRC’s long-held practice of allowing non-taxable persons to belong to VAT groups. Judgment is expected in 2013. Given the robust and comprehensive opinion of the Advocate General, taxpayers can feel confident of a favourable outcome.

Melanie Hall QC represented the UK in the UK proceedings and intervened in support of Ireland. All UK arguments have been accepted by the Advocate General.

Click to view the judgment in EC v IRELAND

Click here to view our case note.

Sub One v HMRC, in which Melanie Hall QC and Ewan West of Monckton Chambers represented HMRC, is a featured case in this week’s edition of ‘The Lawyer.’

In Sub One v HMRC, The Hon Mr Justice Arnold rejected a challenge made by 1,200 hot food outlets to the UK legislation on VAT payable on hot takeaway food. The outlets argued that the legislation, introduced by Thatcher, was contrary to EU law because it inevitably meant that hot food outlets were taxed differently depending on what was in the mind of the supplier when the food was heated. The Judge disagreed. The legislation did not breach EU law. He concluded that it was perfectly possible to assess the purpose for which food has been heated above ambient air temperature in a way that did not create inequality between competing food outlets.

To read the full article, please click here.

The new Supreme Court encourages visitors to the Court. Those who visit come away with a variety of impressions of the highest court in the land. In this post on the Supreme Court’s blog, artist Isobel Williams reflects on her visit to the Court last July at O’Brien v Ministry of Justice and during the appeal of BCL Old Co Limited and others v BASF plc and others.

For Supreme Court blog please click here.

Peter Mantle, representing the OFT, successfully defended the penalty imposed on MCO Capital Ltd anti-money laundering breaches.

The First-tier Tribunal in its decision of 7 November 2012 agreed with the arguments advanced by the OFT on the merits and technical issues. It approved the OFT’s formulation and implementation of its Interim Penalty Policy in the first money laundering penalty appeal brought  by a consumer credit lender.

MCO’s appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

‘International Charitable Giving,’ a book with contributions by Philip Moser QC and Raymond Hill, is published this week.

‘International Charitable Giving’ provides comprehensive treatment of cross-border charitable giving and an extensive analysis of the broader and jurisdiction-specific issues surrounding international giving.  The book contains a range of jurisdiction-specific chapters, enabling easy comparison of the various legal systems and is written by a team of expert practitioners from leading global firms, offering accurate and authoritative information.

Philip Moser QC and Raymond Hill co-authored the ‘Charities and EU Law’ chapter of the book.

For more information on International Charitable Giving, or to purchase a copy, please click here.

An Opinion co-authored by Eric Metcalfe for the Equality and Human Rights Commission has advised that the proposed extension of controversial Closed Material Procedures under the Justice and Security Bill would be incompatible with the right to a fair trial under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Commission launched the opinion at a briefing meeting for Peers in the House of Lords on 31 October. The Commission has a statutory duty under section 11 of the Equality Act 2006 to monitor and advise on the effectiveness of equality and human rights law and the likely effect of a proposed change of law. The Bill will be reported back to the House on 19 November.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission press release

The launch of the opinion was also reported in:

The Guardian

The Daily Telegraph

On 30 and 31 October 2012, the Supreme Court heard the appeal in the case of X v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau and others.  Kassie Smith appeared for the Secretary of State before the Supreme Court.

The Court considered the following issues: (1) Whether the Framework Directive (Directive 2000/78/EC Establishing a Framework for Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation) applies to volunteers? (2) If it does, whether its provisions can receive direct effect in domestic law between private parties?

The Appellant worked as a volunteer adviser at the Citizens’ Advice Bureau (“CAB”). She was not contractually bound to work and received no remuneration for doing so. Although volunteers often do go on to become employed by the CAB as paid advisers, this is not automatic. There is an open, external recruitment process for paid posts and volunteering arrangements were not for the purpose of determining to whom employment should be offered. The Appellant alleges that, after she informed the CAB that she was HIV positive, she was told that she could not return to work. She claims disability discrimination. As a preliminary issue, the Employment Tribunal determined that the Appellant was not within the scope of the Disability Discrimination Act’s definition of “employment”, because it did not cover voluntary work. The Appellant’s appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal, where argument focused more on the terms of the EC Framework Directive, were unsuccessful.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was reserved and will be handed down in due course.

Barclays became the first bank to be ordered to stand trial in a British court over damages stemming from manipulation of the Libor interest rate after a High Court ruling on Monday 29 October 2012.  Guardian Care Homes, a residential care home operator based in Wolverhampton, is suing Barclays for up to £ 37 million over the alleged mis-selling of interest rate hedging products known as swaps.  Mr Justice Flaux rejected Barclays attempts to oppose introduction of the Libor misselling claims.

Guardian Care Homes was also granted permission to introduce a claim alleging that Barclays acted in breach of Article 101 TFEU resulting from Libor manipulation.  That claim was stayed by consent pending the European Commission’s investigation into alleged cartel activities relating to the setting of Euribor and Libor by a number of banks.

The trial is likely to act as a test case for thousands of small British firms who believe they were mis-sold such swaps.

The hearing has been reported in:

Reuters

The Telegraph

Channel 4 News

The Financial Times

Kassie Smith is acting for Guardian Care Homes Limited on the competition law issues.

Click to view the judgment in Graiseley Properties Limited v Barclays Bank

The Supreme Court has handed down judgment in the first competition case to come before it, BCL Old Co. Ltd v BASF plc [2012] UKSC 45.

The case concerned the date on which time begins to run for the purposes of the two year limitation period for bringing follow-on damages claims in the Competition Appeal Tribunal, under section 47A Competition Act 1998.  The Supreme Court considered whether the interpretation of section 47A adopted by the Court of Appeal in BCL Old Co. v BASF plc [2009] EWCA Civ 434, together with the interpretation of the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s Rules adopted in BCL Old Co. v BASF plc. (No. 2) [2010] EWCA Civ 1258, was sufficiently foreseeable and clear to potential claimants to comply with the European law principles of effectiveness and legal certainty.

Christopher Vajda QC and Laura Elizabeth John appeared for the Appellants.

To read the judgment, please click here.

Monckton Chambers are delighted to announce that Meredith Pickford was awarded “Junior of the Year” for EU and Competition law at the annual Chambers Bar Awards held at the Hilton, Park Lane.

Congratulations to Meredith.