In this post, Jack Williams of Monckton Chambers discusses aspects of the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s (“CAT”) decision in Umbrella Interchange Fee Claimants and Merricks v Umbrella Interchange Fee Defendants and Mastercard [2023] CAT 49 (“Interchange”) concerning whether the CAT was bound to follow the European Court of Justice’s (“CJEU”) decision in C-267/20 Volvo AB and DAF Trucks NV v RM EU:C:2022:494 (“Volvo”), which post-dated IP completion day.
Continue reading “The CAT goes astray on accrued EU law rights”Frying up a “kind of” answer for when directives form part of retained EU law
In this blog post, Jack Williams of Monckton Chambers comments on C G Fry and Son Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities [2023] EWHC 1622 (Admin) (“Fry”). The case is relevant for those seeking to determine when provisions of EU directives remain part of domestic law post-Brexit as part of retained EU law.
Continue reading “Frying up a “kind of” answer for when directives form part of retained EU law”The interpretative role of EU law from 2024
In this blog post, Jack Williams of Monckton Chambers discusses the recent case of E-Accounting Solutions Ltd (t/a Advancetrack) v Global Infosys Ltd (t/a GI Outsourcing) [2023] EWHC 2038 (Ch) (“E-Accounting”) in which HHJ Tindal makes a number of observations about the future impact of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (“REUL Act”) and the interpretative role of EU law even after 2023.
Continue reading “The interpretative role of EU law from 2024”The EEA EFTA Separation Agreement and citizens’ rights
In this post Clíodhna Kelleher of Monckton Chambers discusses the EEA EFTA Separation Agreement, freedom of movement law in the EEA, and how the citizens’ rights provisions in the EEA EFTA Separation Agreement conform to and diverge from the equivalent provisions of the UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement.
Continue reading “The EEA EFTA Separation Agreement and citizens’ rights”Lights out: Divisional Court dismisses post-Brexit subsidy control challenge to the sale of Bulb
In this post Alfred Artley of Monckton Chambers discusses the Divisional Court’s judgment in R (British Gas Trading Limited) v Secretary of State for Energy Security.
In a major judgment on the UK’s post-Brexit subsidy control regime, the Divisional Court has dismissed judicial review challenges brought by a number of energy suppliers to the government-backed takeover of Bulb by Octopus Energy. This post summarises the decision (full judgment here), and discusses some of the key points that may be of significance for future subsidy control claims.
Continue reading “Lights out: Divisional Court dismisses post-Brexit subsidy control challenge to the sale of Bulb”