HP Bulmer Ltd & Anor v J. Bollinger SA & Ors [1974] EWCA Civ 14

French champagne producers sought to prevent English cider makers from using 'Champagne Cider' and 'Champagne Perry' labels. The case established important guidelines on when English courts should refer questions of European Community law interpretation to the European Court of Justice under Article 177 of the Treaty of Rome.

Facts

French champagne producers (J. Bollinger SA and others) brought proceedings against English cider producers (HP Bulmer Ltd and Showerings Ltd) regarding the use of the terms ‘Champagne Cider’ and ‘Champagne Perry’ on English beverages. The English producers had used these expressions for 70-80 years. Following the UK’s accession to the European Economic Community on 1 January 1973, the French producers amended their claim to argue that such use contravened European Community law, specifically Regulations 816/70 and 817/70 concerning wine designations.

The Reference Application

The French producers requested that two questions be referred to the European Court of Justice at Luxembourg: (A) whether the use of ‘Champagne’ on beverages other than champagne wine contravened Community law, and (B) whether a national court should refer such questions to the European Court. Whitford J refused to make the reference at that stage, preferring to try the whole case first.

Issues

The key issues were: (1) Which court should interpret the Community Regulations – the European Court or English courts? (2) At what stage should interpretation be undertaken? (3) What principles should govern the exercise of discretion under Article 177(2) of the Treaty of Rome?

Judgment

Lord Denning MR

Lord Denning provided extensive guidance on the relationship between English courts and European Community law following UK accession. On the impact of the Treaty, he stated:

“The Treaty is like an incoming tide. It flows into the estuaries and up the rivers. It cannot be held back. Parliament has decreed that the Treaty is henceforward to be part of our law.”

Regarding interpretation, Lord Denning distinguished between the task of interpreting the Treaty (where the European Court is supreme) and applying it (where English judges have the final word). He noted that under Article 177(3), the House of Lords must refer questions of interpretation, but lower courts have complete discretion under Article 177(2).

Guidelines for Reference

Lord Denning established guidelines for when references are necessary and how discretion should be exercised:

“The point must be such that, whichever way the point is decided, it is conclusive of the case. Nothing more remains but to give judgment.”

Factors relevant to discretion include: time to obtain a ruling (six to nine months), avoiding overloading the European Court, formulating questions clearly, the difficulty and importance of the point, expense to parties, and the wishes of the parties.

Principles of Interpretation

On how English courts should interpret Community law, Lord Denning stated:

“No longer must they examine the words in meticulous detail. No longer must they argue about the precise grammatical sense. They must look to the purpose or intent… They must divine the spirit of the Treaty and gain inspiration from it. If they find a gap, they must fill it as best they can.”

Stephenson LJ

Stephenson LJ agreed that the judge was correct to refuse the reference. He emphasised that Article 177 requires that a decision be ‘necessary’ to give judgment, not merely expedient or convenient:

“Article 177 does not provide for a Court considering that a decision on the question is expedient or convenient, or necessary to enable it to give judgment shortly, or more shortly, or more cheaply and conveniently, but necessary to enable it to give it.”

Implications

This case is of fundamental importance in establishing the framework for English courts’ relationship with European Community law. It confirmed that lower courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to refer questions to the European Court, provided guidelines for exercising that discretion, and established principles for interpreting Community law when English courts decide matters themselves. The case became a leading authority on Article 177 references and the integration of European law into English legal practice.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed with costs. The Court of Appeal upheld Whitford J’s refusal to refer the questions to the European Court of Justice, holding that it was not necessary at that stage to obtain a ruling before the facts had been determined at trial. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

Source: HP Bulmer Ltd & Anor v J. Bollinger SA & Ors [1974] EWCA Civ 14