Richard Gordon QC outlined the scope for professional and trade associations to bring and defend judicial review cases and how to identify ‘public law points’. He described the traps waiting for the unwary and explained how associations might intervene in judicial review claims brought by other parties as well as the difficulties introduced (as from 13th April 2015) by Part 4 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. His analysis included consideration of R v. Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex p. Datafin plc as well as very recent case-law (R (Holmcroft Properties) v. KPMG) on the amenability of ‘private law’ bodies to judicial review.
Jemima Stratford QC spoke about when and how professional and trade associations may encounter and use EU law. With UK membership in question, the discussion covered the options available including references to the Court in Luxembourg and direct actions.
Robert O’Donoghue spoke about the major competition law pitfalls for trade and professional associations and how the concerns for the association are often quite different to those of its participating members. He also covered recent trends in competition decisions to hold the associations themselves directly liable for infringements in their own right.
Gerard Rothschild covered recent developments in the law on consultation of relevance to professional/trade associations as consultees and consultors - (1) the endorsement of the "Sedley principles" by the Supreme Court in R (Moseley) v. Haringey LBC; (2) the likely effect of section 84 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 which came into force on 13th April; (3) the Divisional Court's judgment on the remains of King Richard III; (4) the Court of Appeal's judgment in R (Rusal) v. London Metal Exchange; and (5) the unusual relief granted by Cranston J in R (British Dental Association) v. General Dental Council.
Zahra Al-Rikabi spoke about the right to pursue a trade or profession under Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR. The discussion covered contracts and goodwill as ‘possessions’ under A1P1 and the case of Breyer v. DOE.