header-logo header-logo

In principle...

07 September 2012 / Paul Lasok KC
Issue: 7528 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , EU
printer mail-detail

Interpretation or application—is the Court of Appeal right, asks Paul Lasok QC

According to the Court of Appeal, a reference should not be made to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for a preliminary ruling under Art 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU 267) where the issue of EU law involves applying that law rather than interpreting it. This article considers that question by reference to two Court of Appeal cases: John Wilkins (Motor Engineers) Ltd and others v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2011] EWCA Civ 429, [2011] STC 1371 and JBW Group Ltd v Ministry of Justice [2012] EWCA Civ 8, [2012] All ER (D) 69 (Jan).

What is the problem?

In John Wilkins, the application/interpretation issue concerned the compatibility with the EU law principle of effectiveness of the statutory regime for recovering overpaid VAT should a claimant be entitled to compound interest under EU law. Etherton LJ, with whom the rest of the Court of Appeal agreed, considered that a reference to

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll