HP Bulmer Ltd v J Bollinger SA
Lord Denning gave guidance on when English courts below the final court should refer questions to the Court of Justice, emphasising that references should not be made lightly.
Facts
Bulmer, an English cider maker, sold products called champagne cider and champagne perry. Bollinger and other French champagne producers claimed that the use of the word champagne was contrary to EU regulations protecting wine names, and asked the English court to refer the question to the Court of Justice.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal refused to make a reference. Lord Denning MR said that only the House of Lords, as the final court, was obliged to refer, and that other courts had a discretion. He set out guidelines for deciding whether a reference was necessary, including whether the point would be conclusive of the case, whether the Court of Justice had already ruled on it, whether the point was reasonably clear and free from doubt, and whether the facts had been decided. He also emphasised the time and expense of a reference. His guidelines were later criticised as discouraging references, and English courts became more willing to refer.
Related cases on preliminary references
- Broekmeulen v Huisarts Registratie Commissie Case 246/80, [1981] ECR 2311
- Consorzio Italian Management v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA Case C-561/19, EU:C:2021:799
- Da Costa en Schaake NV v Nederlandse Belastingadministratie Joined Cases 28/62 to 30/62, [1963] ECR 31
- Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH v Bundesbaugesellschaft Berlin mbH Case C-54/96, [1997] ECR I-4961
- Elchinov v Natsionalna zdravnoosiguritelna kasa Case C-173/09, [2010] ECR I-8889
- Foglia v Novello (No 1) Case 104/79, [1980] ECR 745
- Foto-Frost v Hauptzollamt Lübeck-Ost Case 314/85, [1987] ECR 4199
- Lyckeskog Case C-99/00, [2002] ECR I-4839
Studying EU Law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
