HP Bulmer Ltd & Anor v. J. Bollinger SA & Ors [1974] EWCA Civ 14
Established the necessary criteria for the referral of a domestic case to the European courts.
Facts
The appellants, Bulmer, created a product called Babycham which they also described as ‘champagne perry’. The claimants, Bollinger, asserted that the defendants were not entitled to call the product champagne as it did not come from the Champagne region of France. European Community law provided regulations on the labelling of wine, which Bulmer’s actions technically violated and thus at first instance it was found that Bulmer ought cease describing its products as champagne. Displeased with this ruling, Bulmer appealed and asserted that the matter ought receive consideration by the European Court of Justice as it concerned a European law.
Issues
Whether the domestic Courts system of a Member State could reasonably not allow an appeal to the European Courts where the case concerned an EC law.
Decision/Outcome
The Court declined to refer the case to the European Court of Justice, viewing that it could be sufficiently adjudicated at the national level. Further, the requirements for a case being worthy of referral to the European courts were determined to include: that the facts of the case ought already be settled, that the decision subsequently be made should be conclusive, that a case on the same matter had not already received treatment, and further that the legal question in matter not be act eclair, that is sufficiently clear that it can be applied without requesting the opinion of the European Courts. Thus, referrals should only be made where necessary, not where merely desirable or convenient. Notably, Lord Denning commented: ‘The Treaty is like an incoming tide. It flows into the estuaries and up the rivers. It cannot be held back’
Words: 299
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate as a description of the 1974 Court of Appeal decision and the criteria Lord Denning set out for referring questions to the European Court of Justice under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty (now Article 267 TFEU). However, readers should be aware of two important points.
First, the correct term for the doctrine described as act eclair is acte clair (meaning a point of EU law so clear that no reference is necessary). The related doctrine of acte éclairé covers points already decided by the ECJ. Both were later more authoritatively addressed by the ECJ itself in CILFIT v Ministry of Health (Case 283/81) [1982], which refined and to some extent superseded the Bulmer guidelines at the European level.
Second, and most significantly, the United Kingdom left the European Union on 31 January 2020. The mechanism for referring questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) under Article 267 TFEU no longer applies to UK courts. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 govern the retained EU law framework. UK courts are no longer bound by, and cannot make references to, the CJEU, save for very limited transitional matters. The Supreme Court and certain other senior courts now have discretion to depart from retained CJEU case law under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (as amended). This case therefore has primarily historical and academic significance in the UK context today, though it remains relevant to understanding how the Article 267 reference procedure operated during the UK’s EU membership.
