CASE HUB (ARCHIVE 10/04/2013) ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 10 April 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU investigation into CEZ (case number COMP/39.727). The Commission accepted commitments on 10/04/2013. Latest developments On 10 April 2013, the Commission accepted commitments

A: General requirements Complete section A for all conditional fee agreements (CFAs) except for personal injury or clinical negligence CFAs which are subject to a separate checklist. If you answer ‘no’ to any question, the CFA you are proposing may be unenforceable and/or you may breach the SRA’s regulatory regime. Requirement Compliant Additional information Agreement is in writing Yes/No The agreement must be in writing CFA relates to advocacy or litigation services Yes/No You can only have a CFA for advocacy or litigation services CFA does not relate to criminal proceedings, apart from proceedings under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 Yes (it does not)/No (it does) CFA

A: General information Matter reference Client name Date of cause of action Type of claim, eg RTA, employer’s liability, clinical negligence Brief description of claim B: The opponent/third party Can we identify the opponent/third party? Yes/No Name of opponent/third party Type of entity(eg partnership, PLC, company, individual) Do we have a current address for the opponent/third party? Yes/No/Not known Does the opponent/third party have insurance to pay the damages our client is claiming? Yes/No/Not known Does the opponent/third party have the means to pay the damages our client is claiming?

This Practice Note deals with the recovery of success fees and after-the-event (ATE) insurance premiums from the losing party where the conditional fee agreement (CFA) was signed and the insurance policy was taken out on or after 1 April 2013. For general guidance on CFAs, see Practice Notes: • Conditional fee agreements after 1 April 2013—personal injury and clinical negligence • Clinical negligence claims—funding and costs—Conditional fee agreements (CFAs) CFAs and ATE insurance policies—entered into before 1 April 2013 Success fees and ATE insurance premiums continue to be recoverable where the CFA or policy was entered into before 1 April 2013. It is important to be aware of the Court of Appeal decision in Simmons v Castle in 2012. This provides for a 10% uplift on general damages which was intended to compensate CFA claimants for the loss of recoverable success fees. However, since success fees are still recoverable in cases where a CFA was entered into before 1 April 2013, the 10% uplift on general damages does

Dispute Resolution analysis: A decision of Senior Costs Judge Rowley (the ‘Judge’) in the ongoing phone hacking litigation against Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World and the Sun, known more formally as the Mobile Telephone Voicemail Interception Litigation (MTVIL).The decision will be of general interest as the Judge provides a useful summary of the procedural history to this litigation, the factual aspects of which get significant press attention. The case also considered proportionality issues in costs assessments and issues concerning the recoverability of success fees under a CFA where transitional provisions continue to apply. Written by Lauren Godfrey, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers.

Detailed assessment proceedings considering recovery under CFAs were complicated where the claimant had died and his successors in the action had had to enter into new CFAs post the substantive trial but before judgment was given. On an appeal from the costs master, Spencer J considered that (i) defendants could be adequately compensated in costs where there had been a failure to give notice of the provision of success fees in the 'second CFAs' (ii) imported into the phrase 'any additional liability' in CPR 44.3B the words 'as the case may be' from the definition in CPR 43.2(1)(o) — so as to tie-in non-recoverability to the specific additional liability which is the subject of the default rather than a general blanket ban on recoverability of all additional liabilities and (iii) considered what was a justifiable success fee in the somewhat unusual circumstances of this case.

This Practice Note explains how to calculate a controlled foreign company (CFC) tax charge. Once it has been established, in relation to a particular accounting period, that a company: • is a CFC • has chargeable profits, and • cannot apply one of the exemptions (ie the exempt period, excluded territories, low profits, low profit margin, and tax exemptions) it is necessary to apportion: • the chargeable profits, as further explained below, and • the creditable tax, as further explained below among those persons who had a relevant interest in the CFC at any time in that accounting period (the relevant persons). No reliefs may be set off against the CFC tax charge. This note explains: • what the chargeable profits of the CFC are • the steps that need to be taken in order to: ◦ identify the relevant persons ◦ determine the creditable tax of the CFC ◦ make an apportionment of the chargeable profits and creditable tax and ◦ identify the chargeable companies ◦ calculate the CFC tax charge, and

This Practice Note deals with the UK activities gateway and safe-harbour within the controlled foreign company (CFC) rules. As explained in meaning of gateways, the CFC tax charge only arises if profits pass through the CFC charge gateway. A CFC's assumed total profits (ATP) only pass through the CFC charge gateway if they pass through the initial chapter 3 gateway and/or one of the gateways in chapters 4–8 of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 (TIOPA 2010). When does the chapter 4 UK activities gateway need to be considered? The detail of the main chapter 4 gateway on UK activities will only need to be considered for an accounting period of a CFC if: • none of the entity level exemptions apply (ie the exempt period, excluded territories, low profits, low profit margin, and tax exemptions) • the CFC has some ATP, and • the controllers of the CFC have: ◦ chosen not to apply the initial chapter 3 gateway, or ◦ applied the initial chapter 3 gateway

This Practice Note deals with the chapter 5 gateway under the controlled foreign company (CFC) rules. As explained in Practice Note: meaning of gateways, a CFC tax charge only arises if profits pass through the CFC charge gateway. A CFC's assumed total profits (ATP) only pass through the CFC charge gateway if they pass through the initial chapter 3 gateway and/or one of the gateways in chapters 4–8 of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 (TIOPA 2010). When does the chapter 5 non-trade finance gateway need to be considered? The detail of the main chapter 5 gateway on non-trade finance profits (NTFP) will only need to be considered for an accounting period of a CFC if: • none of the entity level exemptions apply (ie the exempt period, excluded territories, low profits, low profit margin, and tax exemptions) • the CFC has some NTFP (explained below), and • the controllers of the CFC have: ◦ chosen not to apply the initial chapter 3 gateway (which is, as explained below, unlikely in

This Practice Note deals with the chapter 6 trading finance gateway under the controlled foreign company (CFC) rules. As explained in Practice Note: CFC rules—initial chapter 3 gateway—Meaning of gateways, a CFC tax charge only arises if profits pass through the CFC charge gateway. A CFC's assumed total profits (ATP) only pass through the CFC charge gateway if they pass through the initial chapter 3 gateway and/or one of the gateways in chapters 4–8 of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 (TIOPA 2010). When does the chapter 6 trading finance gateway need to be considered? The detail of the main chapter 6 gateway on trading finance profits (TFP) will only need to be considered for an accounting period of a CFC if: • none of the entity level exemptions apply (ie the exempt period, excluded territories, low profits, low profit margin and CFC tax exemptions) • the CFC has some TFP (explained below), and • the controllers of the CFC have: ◦ chosen not to apply the initial chapter 3 gateway,

This Practice Note deals with the chapter 9 finance company exemptions under the controlled foreign company (CFC) rules. Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 (TIOPA 2010) provides an elective regime to exempt (or partially exempt) from the CFC regime certain non-trade finance profits of CFCs from the CFC charge. The aim of this regime is to enable multinational groups to have a non-UK finance company making intra-group loans to other non-UK companies without incurring a significant UK tax charge. These finance profit exemptions exempt certain profits of the CFC rather than the CFC itself. This means that they: • are different from the entity level exemptions (ie the exempt period, excluded territories, low profits, low profit margin, and tax exemptions), which exempt the whole CFC from the CFC rules for that accounting period, and • can be used alongside the gateways, which may eliminate certain other profits from passing through the CFC charge gateway, eg one of the finance company exemptions may exempt finance profits while one of the

This Practice Note explains the concept of control for the purposes of the controlled foreign company (CFC) rules. This concept is important because in order to be a controlled foreign company (a CFC) the company must be ‘controlled’ by persons resident in the UK. This Practice Note describes: • the specific CFC definitions of control, namely: ◦ legal control ◦ economic control, and ◦ control by reference to accounting standards • the rules for the ‘50% investment’ test • the rules for joint control, and • the rules that attribute additional rights to a person in order to determine whether that person exercises control Legal control A person (P) has legal control of a company (C) if P has the power to secure that the affairs of C are conducted in accordance with P's wishes, either: • by means of: ◦ holding shares, or ◦ possessing voting power in, or in relation to, C or any other company, or • by virtue of any powers conferred by: ◦ the articles of association of, or