(4).jpg)
Neil Calver QC’s Public Law CV
Whilst recognised as an accomplished advocate in Commercial cases Neil's recent workload has included a return to his early roots of practice in Public Law .
In his first 7 years at the Bar he became one of the leading juniors in European and Public law and appeared on several occasions during that period before the House of Lords. In particular, Neil played a prominent role in the well-known “Sunday trading” litigation, successfully acting as the advocate for local authorities before the Court of Appeal, House of Lords and European Court of Justice in just his first three years of practice at the Bar. The Sunday Trading litigation raised difficult question of both public and EU law, and led to Neil appearing in the landmark case concerning free movement of goods, namely Council of City of Stoke-on-Trent v B&Q Plc [1993] AC 900; Norwich CC v B&Q [1993] AC 900 (2nd hearing) in which the European Court of Justice, and then the House of Lords, upheld the ban on Sunday trading, which led to a change in the law.
Over the years, Neil has acted in a wide range of high profile public law and EU cases. By way of example:
Neil successfully acted on behalf of Kirkless MBC in another landmark public law case in the House of Lords, successfully arguing that a local authority should not have to give an undertaking in damages as the price of obtaining an interim injunction, in enforcing the Sunday trading criminal legislation: Kirklees MBC v Wickes [1993] AC 227.
Neil also successfully acted for Wrekin District Council in another high-profile case before the European Court in defeating the challenge under EU law to the local authority’s concessionary bus pass scheme, which was limited to men over 65 years and women over 60 years: Atkins v Wrekin DC [1996] All ER (EC) 719 and [1997] ICR 75.
Neil’s success in resisting the challenge to the ban on Sunday trading under EU law, also led to him acting for a large number of local authorities in cases concerning challenges to local authorities’ charter markets rights, both under domestic and EU law. No such challenges succeeded.
During this time, Neil also acquired a great deal of experience in defending public law challenges to resolutions of local authority committees, on both procedural and substantive grounds in the High Court.
Indeed, Neil has acted in a very wide range of public law cases, especially on behalf of local authorities over the years.
In particular, he successfully representing Lincoln BC and Luton BC in the Court of Appeal (R v Lincoln City Council ex parte King and Another; R v Luton BC ex parte Mirza) in resisting the challenge to the local authority’s decision only to licence as hackney carriages in its borough London style black cabs, which led to a challenge on both domestic and EU grounds.
Neil successfully argued the first case in which the courts agreed to order that individual members of an unincorporated association should be liable, jointly and severally, for the costs of a failed public law challenge: R v Darlington Borough Council ex parte The Association of Darlington Taxi Owners, The Times, 21 January 1994.
Neil successfully acted for Wellingborough Council in a case before the decision court which laid down the criteria for what constitutes a “reasonable excuse” when accused of committing an offence under the noise nuisance legislation: Wellingborough BC v Gordon [1991] JPL 874.
Neil has also frequently acted on behalf of the National Farmer’s Union, and, in Hood v NFU, succeeded in defeating a high-profile negligence action brought by a number of farmers in respect of the legal advice given by the NFU concerning the time limits for challenging a government decision concerning milk quotas.
Neil also acted in a public challenge to the Law Society’s disciplinary powers in R v Law Society ex parte Ingman Foods [1997] 2 All ER 666.
For a 5 year period Neil was on the Government’s VAT panel of chosen counsel and acted for the Government in successfully resisting a number of challenges concerning the levying of VAT, including Manchester & Salford Hospital Saturday Fund v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1999] STC 649 (QBD); London & general Insurance Co Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1998] V&DR 191
Important recent cases include:
In R (Birmingham and Solihull Taxi Association) v Birmingham International Airport Limited (judgment 28/7/09) [2009] EWHC 1913, Wyn Williams J had to consider whether Neil's client, the Airport Authority, in terminating the licence of Birmingham and Solihull Taxi Association (BASTA) (represented by James Goudie QC) to provide taxi services from the Airport taxi rank pursuant to a commercial contract negotiated between them was nonetheless subject to public law duties not to act for an improper purpose and to consult BASTA prior to termination of the licence. The Court held that the Airport Authority was in principle amenable to judicial review but was not a body which had a duty to comply with the principles of transparency under the EU Treaty, with the majority of the Airport Authority's shares being held by private companies. The Court also held that on the facts, there was no evidence that the Airport Authority had acted for an improper purpose, nor that it had failed adequately to consult with BASTA. The claim was accordingly successfully dismissed. This case - concerning as it does the granting of a mandatory injunction in an EU context - attracted a lot of attention in the legal press.
Neil acted recently for the Dairy Farmers of Great Britain in resisting EU and public law challenges by members to milk purchasing tie-in agreements.
Neil has also recently acted in an number of high profle public law pharmaceutical challenges, including obtaining an injunction (Mr. Justice Lewison) on behalf of Intecare Direct Limited, a pharmacy and homecare services provider, against the pharmaceutical company, Aventis Pharma Limited (trading as Sanofi-Aventis), ordering Aventis to continue supplies to Intecare pending a further hearing in the matter. The basis of the application was that, prima facie, Aventis was in a dominant position in the relevant market for the medicine in question (Copaxone used for multiple sclerosis patients) and was abusing that position in refusing to deal with Intecare, a customer for some time already, as well as in pressurising hospitals/patients not to deal with Intecare. After a contested hearing and argument concerning Article 82 of the Treaty and section 18 of the Competition Act, Lewison J granted a mandatory injunction compelling Aventis to contunue to supply Intecare with the drug.
Neil recently acted for Intel Corporation in its major High Court litigation against VIA technologies in relation to a challenge by VIA against Intel’s refusal to license VIA with its technology patents under Article 81(1) and 82 of the Treaty. This required quick mastery by him of highly sophisticated computer technology systems (in particular microprocessors and chipsets) and the application of the law to those systems (including intellectual property law, as well as EU law principles).
Neil also acted (in Woolcombers v Yorkshire Water) in a case in which the largest woolcombing business in the UK challenged (alleging an abuse of a dominant position) Yorkshire Water’s charging structure for the treatment of trade effluent in the wool sector, which again required the marshalling of complex expert economic evidence. The case was settled after Woolcombers successfully resisted Yorkshire Water’s application for summary judgment.
Neil also has recently been advising Brewin Dolphin, the broking house, arising out of the split capital investment trust enquiry by the Parliamentary Select Committee which raised public law issues, and has also acted for Lloyd’s brokers in successfully challenging in the High Court the powers exercised by the Council of Lloyds in seeking to suspend those brokers for misconduct.
