De novo meaning

Mergers The Commission: granted conditional approval for International Paper Company’s acquisition of DS Smith Plc (M.11565) following a phase I review—see also, press release approved Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec and Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board obtaining joint control of Connexa Limited (M.11836) after a phase I review—see also, Midday Express authorised the formation of a joint venture by Permira Holding Limited and BasicNet S.p.A. (M.11808) after a phase I assessment—see also, Midday Express The Commission received filings for: Novo Holdings/TA Associates/Biocomposites (M.11853) (simplified merger procedure) Nokia/Infinera (M.11663) (standard merger procedure) Note—For all live merger investigations before the Commission, see also, EU mergers—ongoing cases tracker Upcoming dates For dates of upcoming EU competition developments, see also, EU Competition calendar...

In this issue: Public procurement Children's social care Education Licensing Social housing Local authority prosecutions Governance Local government finance Social care Environmental law and climate change Planning Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Public procurement CCS launches new procurement tools for electric vehicle infrastructure Crown Commercial Service (CCS) has rolled out a toolkit to help local authorities navigate procurement for electric vehicle infrastructure (EVI). Developed with the Department for Transport and other collaborators, the package includes configurable template documents for open-market procurement of on-street EVI services, together with draft terms and conditions. The materials are designed to reduce complexity, reflect government guidance and reinforce good practice. In addition, CCS has produced a distinct set of documents to cater for the upcoming Procurement Act 2023 regulations, which will apply from 24 February 2025, enabling compliance with the present and future regimes. See: LNB News 11/02/2025 17 and LNB...

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council and another v Loveridge and others [2025] EWHC 738 (KB) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment is important for practitioners as it clarifies the correct approach to two novel questions arising after Wolverhampton: the court’s power when renewing a traveller injunction targeted at newcomer persons unknown, as distinct from orders against identified defendants and the broader class of persons unknown; and how the Wolverhampton guidance for making traveller injunctions interfaces with the precautionary relief test for persons unknown in Vastint [2019] 4 WLR 2. The renewal application was determined de novo. The court confirmed that the multifactorial approach in Vastint (see [31]) has not been disapproved by Wolverhampton and was applied in this case (at [83]). The decision also serves as a reminder of the importance of full and frank disclosure on without notice injunction applications, and illustrates how the Wolverhampton guidelines operate in practice...

Statutory rights of the appeal Statutory rights of appeal are confined to decisions that refuse the grant or renewal of a licence, that attach conditions to a licence (recognising that a hackney carriage driver’s licence cannot carry conditions), or that suspend or revoke a licence. A recurring issue for licensing authorities and the taxi and private hire trades concerns the proper interpretation of section 77(2) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (LG(MP)A 1976): does a holder retain the privileges of the former licence where a renewal application is submitted but not decided before the previous licence expires? Despite the frequency of this scenario and the age of the statute, the point appears only to have reached the Crown Court. In Cartledge v Gedling Borough Council (June 2021), Nottingham Crown Court (not reported by LexisNexis®), Cartledge appealed a conviction for driving a hackney carriage without holding a hackney carriage driver’s licence. The court concluded that, on the facts, failing to renew before expiry amounted to a refusal to...

The Tribunal’s Power to Determine its Own Jurisdiction ( kompetenz-kompetenz ) This Practice Note examines issues of tribunal jurisdiction under Swedish law. Section 2 of the Swedish Arbitration Act (SAA) states that: Arbitrators are empowered to decide their own jurisdiction over the dispute. If they conclude that they have jurisdiction, any party may appeal to the Court of Appeal within 30 days of receiving the decision. The arbitral proceedings may continue while the court considers the appeal. Sections 34 and 36 apply to any action challenging an arbitral award that includes a decision on jurisdiction. In consequence, Swedish law endorses the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz (la compétance de la compétance), meaning arbitrators have authority to rule on their own competence. In doing so, they should also observe the separability doctrine, which the SAA has codified (see: No Jurisdiction below)...

This Practice Note explores the appeals route under the Gafta Arbitration Rules No. 125 (Gafta 125). References to ‘Rules’ in this Practice Note are to the Gafta 125 rules in force for contracts dated from 1 March 2022, unless stated otherwise. For guidance on starting arbitration under Gafta 125, see Practice Note: Gafta—commencing an arbitration under Gafta Arbitration Rules No. 125. For an outline of the first-tier arbitration, see Practice Note: Gafta—the arbitration process under Gafta Arbitration Rules No. 125. Under Gafta 125, an appeal is a de novo (ie a wholly new) hearing of the dispute before a different Gafta tribunal. Accordingly, the parties may present evidence and submissions not advanced at first instance, and the Board of Appeal may affirm, vary, amend or set aside any part of the award (Rule 12.5)... Preliminary steps and time limits Notice of Appeal To initiate an appeal, by 12 noon on the 30th consecutive day after the first-tier award, the appellant must: notify Gafta of its...