‘Kit Kat manufacturer Nestlé has had its bid to trade mark the shape of its four-fingered chocolate bar rejected by the Court of Appeal in London in a ruling which could impact on similar applications to trade mark shapes deemed not to be inherently distinctive.’
OUT-LAW.com, 23rd May 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘In September 2015, the Upper Tribunal decided the case of Amirteymour and others (EEA appeals; human rights) [2015] UKUT 466 (IAC). The decision states that if an appeal is brought in the First-Tier Tribunal against an EEA decision then the only relevant issues that can be raised during the appeal are those directly connected to that EEA decision. Human rights issues, the Upper Tribunal ruled, were not justiciable. This case was covered at the time by Free Movement, where several issues were raised in respect of the reasoning of the tribunal, and the policy of attempting to artificially distinguish between European law rights and other rights guaranteed under domestic human rights legislation. The Court of Appeal has now upheld that ruling.’
Free Movement, 19th May 2017
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘The case of GE v. SSWP (ESA) [2017] UKUT 145 (ACC) sets out how the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (since replaced with the 2016 version), are in some areas, more generous than EU law itself by concluding that an initial right of residence or status as a job-seeker could count towards permanent residence for an EEA national.’
Free Movement, 22nd May 2017
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘The Competition Bulletin is pleased to welcome the third in a three-part series of blogs on Brexit and merger control by Ben Forbes and Mat Hughes of AlixPartners. Ben and Mat are (with others) co-authors of the new Sweet & Maxwell book, “UK Merger Control: Law and Practice”.’
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 16th May 2017
Source: www.competitionbulletin.com
‘Judges at the European court of justice have gathered to rule on a landmark case that could have widespread implications for all EU citizens applying for British passports. ‘
The Guardian, 16th May 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The idea of World Trade Organization (WTO) vetoes being used to settle historical scores over Gibraltar or the Falklands has been circulated as one post-Brexit complication, with the UK set to relinquish its existing WTO status as part of the EU bloc. Gregory Shaffer, a leading authority on international trade law, explains the UK’s tariff and other WTO commitments and considers the very real prospect of the UK spending some time in WTO limbo.’
New Law Journal, 9th May 2017
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘Pictures alone cannot define how colour trade marks should be applied, the Court of Appeal in London has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 12th May 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘After Brexit, the public face of criminal justice will look much the same as it does now. The UK has resisted many of the European Union’s moves towards harmonisation of substantive criminal law and procedure, and it is unlikely to use its new-found freedom from the restraints of EU law to decriminalise things like child pornography, cybercrime and people trafficking. The EU’s greatest impact on criminal justice has been through the multiple agreements and instruments that facilitate the detection, investigation and prosecution of such crimes as terrorism, people trafficking, child pornography, drug-smuggling, cybercrime and fraud across the EU. The best known of these is the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), implemented in 2004.’
London Review of Books, 18th May 2017
Source: www.lrb.co.uk
‘The General Data Protection Regulation (GPDR) (EU) 2016/679 of 27 April 2016 which comes into force in May 2018, will introduce major changes to the law on the processing of personal data in the European Union. Over the next ten months, several European Union and United States law firms we work very closely with will join us in providing you with more information on the GDPR. Different themes will be tackled month by month to help you prepare for the GDPR deadline.’
Technology Law Update, 8th May 2017
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘As we all know, the GDPR is all about the harmonisation of data protection across Europe – hence its form as a regulation (directly effective) rather than a directive (domestic implementing legislation needed). Yes, but: the GDPR leaves an awful lot to member states to implement. For example: exemptions to data subjects’ rights, mechanisms for reconciling data protection and freedom of expression, and the machinery of enforcement by supervisory authorities. Until we have domestic implementing legislation, we can’t fully understand how data protection will work after 25 May 2018.’
Panopticon, 9th May 2017
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘The “legislative tsunami” unleashed by Brexit will deliver the “greatest challenge” in history to the integrity of parliament’s procedures, a former lord chief justice has said. Lord Judge raised his concerns that by the time Brexit is completed and the “great repeal bill” enacted, MPs and peers will have effectively given away their powers to pass laws.’
The Guardian, 3rd May 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Hate crime reports in England and Wales soared in the months leading up to last year’s EU referendum, new figures have revealed.’
The Independent, 27th April 2017
Source: www.independent.co.uk
EnergySolutions EU Ltd (now ATK Energy EU Ltd) v Nuclear Decommissioning Authority [2017] UKSC 34
‘A company was unsuccessful in its bid in a tender process carried out by a public authority for a contract which fell within the ambit of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18/EC (“the Public Procurement Directive”) and Council Directive 89/665/EEC , as amended, which provided for remedies for unsuccessful applicants (“the Remedies Directive”) and which had been given effect to in England and Wales by the Public Contracts Regulations 2006, as amended. The Regulations provided that, after notification of the contracting authority’s decision to award the contract, there would be a ten-day standstill period prior to the actual award of the contract during which time an unsuccessful bidder could issue proceedings to challenge the award. The issuing of proceedings would trigger automatic suspension of the contract award until the challenge was determined or otherwise disposed of, although the court had power to require a cross-undertaking from that party to cover the authority’s losses from not entering into the contract with its preferred bidder. Regulation 47D(2), as inserted, however, allowed for a period of 30 days for the issuing of any proceedings, with regulation 47J(2)(c), as inserted, making provision for an award of damages to the unsuccessful bidder if the court found a breach of duty after the contract had been entered into. The company, having been notified that it was an unsuccessful bidder, expressed its concerns with the procurement process but did not issue proceedings until after the expiry of the standstill period, albeit within the 30-day period. On a trial of preliminary issues, where the authority relied on Court of Justice authority which imposed minimum conditions for claims for breaches of an European Union law right, including that the breach had to be “sufficiently serious”, the judge stated that (i) there was nothing in the Remedies Directive which limited the company to recovery of damages on that basis, and (ii) ordinary principles of English law applied to any award of damages under the 2006 Regulations and so the Court of Justice’s rule would not limit the recovery of damages to “sufficiently serious” breaches of the 2006 Regulations. He declined to make any ruling on a third issue, whether the company’s failure to start proceedings within the standstill period and before the authority had entered into the contract meant that it was not entitled to damages, since it could have acted within the ten-day period to prevent the claimed loss from occurring by causing a suspension of the award of the contract to the successful bidder. On the authority’s appeal on the first two issues the Court of Appeal held that the minimum conditions for an award of damages for breach of an European Union law right had been established by the Court of Justice and so article 2(1)(c) of the Remedies Directive only called for an award of damages where the breach was sufficiently serious, but upheld the judge’s decision that there was no such constraint under the 2006 Regulations, and, on an appeal by the company on the third issue, accepted its submission that the judge ought to have decided as a matter of domestic law that it could not be deprived of damages simply because it had failed to avail itself of the opportunity under the 2006 Regulations to issue the proceedings in time to stop the contract being awarded. The authority appealed on the second and third issues, with the company arguing in relation to the first issue that damages could be awarded under article 2(1)(c) for any breach, whether serious or not. After the hearing the parties reached a settlement of the disputes between them in relation to liability and quantum but requested that the court hand down its judgment on the appeal in any event.’
WLR Daily, 11th April 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2017] UKSC 29
‘The claimants were “closed-ended” investment funds constituted as limited companies. Between 1992 and 2002 they received supplies of services from investment managers rendered pursuant to agreements which provided for the managers to be remunerated by the payment of fees plus VAT “if applicable”. Under the legislation then in force such services did not qualify for exemption and the managers charged VAT at the standard rate. The managers made periodic VAT returns which accounted for the VAT charged as output tax, reclaimed input tax and paid the revenue the net difference. Following a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union it transpired that the supplies of the investment management services should have been exempt from VAT. Accordingly, the managers made claims to the revenue under section 80 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 for repayment of sums accounted for and paid by them in error. The revenue met those claims but, in accordance with the statutory provisions, limited repayments to the net amounts which the managers had paid and did not include any amounts relating to periods which were time-barred. The managers forwarded the reimbursements to the claimants as required under section 80 but since they were insufficient to meet the full amount of VAT which had been mistakenly paid by them the claimants brought proceedings against the revenue on grounds of unjust enrichment and breach of European Union law. The judge found that the revenue had been enriched by the full amount of VAT paid by the claimants to the managers; that the claimants had no cause of action at common law because the statutory scheme protected the revenue from any liability to refund VAT except as provided for under section 80 of the 1994 Act, but that, since, within the limitation period, European Union law required that exclusion to be disapplied, the claimants were entitled to repayment of the full amount of VAT paid by the claimants within that period. The claim in relation to the time-barred periods was therefore dismissed. On appeal by both parties the Court of Appeal concluded that the statutory scheme did not exclude a common law claim but that, since the revenue had only received payment of output tax net of input tax from the managers, it had not been unjustly enriched over the periods in which a refund had been paid to the managers, although a similar repayment was payable to cover the time-barred periods.’
WLR Daily, 11th April 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Brexit will not harm London’s status as a centre for dispute resolution, the lord chief justice has assured Chinese colleagues. In a speech to the National Judges College in Beijing earlier this month and circulated by HM Judiciary today, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd took English contract law as an illustration of why Brexit will have ‘no effect on London’s key strengths’.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 25th April 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Two children who were born in London to an EU couple have been told they can stay in the country after all. The news comes a week after they were told by the Home Office that their application for permanent residency cards was refused.’
The Guardian, 23rd April 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘In the wake of post-Brexit fears for the future of EU citizens in the UK, lawyers should be aware that many of these children are already British, or can become citizens by right, write Solange Valdez-Symonds and Steve Valdez-Symonds.’
Legal Voice, 19th April 2017
Source: www.legalvoice.org.uk
‘Gina Miller, the pro-EU campaigner behind a successful court challenge over article 50, is planning to launch a tactical voting initiative to support election candidates opposed to hard Brexit.’
The Guardian, 19th April 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘In the White Paper published in February this year (“The United Kingdom’s exit from and new partnership with the European Union” Cm 9417), the very first point made was that the “Great Repeal Bill” will “remove the European Communities Act 1972 from the statute book and convert the ‘acquis’ – the body of existing EU law – into domestic law”. It was said that “[t]his means that, wherever practical and appropriate, the same rules and laws will apply on the day after [the United Kingdom] leave[s] the EU as they did before”.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 12th April 2017
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘It is not clear how broad in scope new rules on “profiling” under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) are, the UK’s data protection watchdog has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 11th April 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025