civil aviation authority

The taskforce continues to receive and monitor complaints about unfair practices in relation to cancellations and refunds and potentially unjustifiable price rises.

By John D. Colahan and Anuj Ghai

On 21 May, the CMA released a further update setting out the work of its COVID-19 Taskforce in responding to complaints regarding competition and consumer protection problems arising from the novel coronavirus and measures taken to contain it. This follows a 30 April report (summarised here) which set out the programme of work the CMA intended to undertake to deal with complaints about unfair practices in relation to cancellations and refunds.

Based on the complaints received and additional information received from consumer bodies, such as Which? and Citizens Advice, the CMA’s principal concerns continue to relate to unfair practices in relation to cancellations and refunds and unjustifiable price increases, particularly for essential goods. The CMA notes that from 10 March to 17 May it was contacted more than 60,000 times about coronavirus-related issues; further, the rate at which consumers are contacting the CMA has increased in recent weeks suggesting that problems continue to persist.

The Court ruled on the “dominant purpose” test and offered guidance on the status of multiparty emails, and attachments.

By Oliver Browne and Clare Nida

Two recent Court of Appeal judgments have sought to clarify, and offer practical guidance relating to, legal professional privilege.

In Civil Aviation Authority v. R (on behalf of the application of Jet2.com Ltd) [2020] EWCA Civ 35, the Court considered first whether the “dominant purpose” test still applies in order for a communication to fall within the scope of legal advice privilege. Second, in light of its consideration of this issue, the Court examined the proper approach to determining the status of communications among multiple recipients, and whether emails and attachments hold the same status.

Soon after, in Sports Direct International plc v. The Financial Reporting Council [2020] EWCA Civ 177, the Court overturned a first instance decision that the production of the client’s privileged documents to the regulator would not infringe the legal professional privilege belonging to the client.