Human Rights analysis: Discussing the Supreme Court’s ruling on the suspension of benefits for a severely disabled child in hospital, Steve Broach, a barrister at Monckton Chambers, points out that Mathieson is the latest in a line of recent Supreme Court judgments where international human rights conventions have played a significant role.

Please click here to read the article Supreme Court considers disability living allowance rules.

This article was first published on Lexis®PSL on 20 July 2015. Click for a free trial of Lexis®PSL.

To read the article published by Rights Info please click here.

The Appellant was represented by Ian Wise QC and Stephen Broach, instructed by Mitchell Woolf of Scott-Moncrieff and Associates.

To read the article published by Oxford Human Rights Hub please click here.

The Appellant was represented by Ian Wise QC and Stephen Broach, instructed by Mitchell Woolf of Scott-Moncrieff and Associates.

Please click here to read the article Edenred – a deceptively narrow decision but with wide reaching consequences

This article was first published on Thomson Reuters.

Public Law analysis: What impact will the ruling by the Supreme Court on Edenred v HM Treasury have on public outsourcing contracts? Philip Moser QC, a barrister at Monckton Chambers, advises this will now be the leading judgment on material variation in public procurement and will no doubt inform challenges on contract review clauses.

Please click here to read the article Varying the terms of public contracts — what are the rules

This article was first published on Lexis®PSL Public Law analysis on 9 July 2015. Click for a free trial of Lexis®PSL.

 

To read the full article from The Lawyer please click here.

An article considering how the parties’ choice of court when bringing a claim for competition damages can have a decisive influence on the outcome of a case.

As every experienced litigator knows, the parties’ choice of court can have a decisive influence on the outcome of a case. This article examines the potential for clashes between competent courts for competition law damages claims and the risk of spawning multiple sets of proceedings with irreconcilable judgments. For competition law damages claims, a claimant currently has a choice of two courts in England and Wales (the Chancery Division of the High Court or the Commercial Court) and, from 1 October 2015 onwards, will also be able to start proceedings in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). The precise choice of court will depend on a number of strategic and practical considerations, including the type and degree of judicial or economic expertise required.

Please click here to view the full Choice of English courts for competition damages claims article.

This article was first published by Practical Law.

Raymond Hill’s article in the Bloomberg BNA Viewpoint series examines the Court of Justice’s line of case law on single/multiple supplies following on from the Tellmer decision—and particularly the recent judgment in Wojskowa.

 

Please click to view the full Single Multiple Supplies Definition for VAT Treatment article.

Tax analysis: The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has held in Skandia that services provided by a US company headquarters to its Swedish branch were supplies for VAT purposes. The judgment concerned the Swedish VAT grouping rules and the result is a VAT fiction with real financial consequences, according to Tarlochan Lall, a tax lawyer and barrister at Monckton Chambers, and difficult to decode. Here, he considers whether there is inconsistency in HMRC’s conclusion that, although no change is required in UK law, Skandia will have an impact on certain businesses.

Please click to view the full Skandia and the VAT grouping rules article.

This article was first published on Lexis®PSL Tax on 9 April 2015.