Group litigation order meaning

In this issue: UK mergers UK private actions UK market investigations EU antitrust EU State aid Daily and weekly news alerts LexTalk®Competition: a Lexis®Nexis community New and updated content Caselex UK mergers The CMA has issued its final positions following reviews of three sets of merger remedies and a single market investigation order: discharge undertakings in lieu of reference from August 2011 linked to Acergy SA’s acquisition of Subsea 7 Inc discharge undertakings in lieu of reference from August 2008 relating to Home Retail Group plc’s purchase of 27 leasehold properties from Focus (DIY) Ltd discharge undertakings dating from February 2002 by Lloyds TSB Group plc concerning its acquisition of Abbey National plc revoke the Energy Market Investigation (ECOES/DES) Order 2016 The CMA determined that, due to changes in circumstances, all of the relevant remedies are no longer suitable and should therefore be released (for the undertakings)...

What are the practical implications of this case? This notable judgment addresses three discrete themes of particular significance. First, it revisits the Harman undertaking, which prohibits collateral use of documents obtained on disclosure in civil litigation. Deploying materials produced on disclosure in Australian proceedings to support an anti-suit injunction in England constitutes a breach of that obligation. Second, it assesses the duty of full and frank disclosure on without notice and short notice applications, together with the limited circumstances in which the court may properly exercise its discretion not to set aside an order procured in breach of that duty of full and frank disclosure. Finally, the decision offers a considered treatment of the doctrines of actual and ostensible authority, in a scenario where a company seeks to place reliance on engagement letters executed by a separate entity within the same corporate group. What was the background? Greensill Bank AG (GBAG) is a bank incorporated in Germany and forms part of the Greensill Group. It...

Carbon Six Engineering Ltd v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 177 (TC) In 2022, HMRC issued determinations pursuant to regulation 80 of the Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/2682) and section 8 of the Social Security (Transfer of Functions) Act 1999, in respect of income tax and National Insurance contributions (NICs) it considered due from the appellant, Carbon Six Engineering Ltd. The accompanying letter, notifying the issue of those determinations, asserted that the additional tax and NICs arose because the appellant was a managed services company (MSC), and identified its managed services company provider (MSC provider) as Churchill Knight & Associates (CKA). In truth, the appellant had never entered into any contract with CKA or otherwise engaged with it. It had, however, dealt with The App Accounting Group (TAAG), which HMRC also believed to be a MSC provider. Although HMRC did not formally acknowledge the erroneous reference to CKA, the mistake was corrected in correspondence between the parties on 27 October 2022. The company appealed the determinations...

Practice Note This Practice Note consists of two strands created to help dispute resolution practitioners remain up to date with developments in case law that affect their field, or which influence civil litigation procedure more generally: selected forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court are highlighted below; see Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 summaries of significant appeal decisions in England and Wales (ie rulings of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and, where appropriate, certain judgments of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Court of Justice of the European Union), and ECtHR, which we have covered; see: Key forthcoming appeal cases—2022 You can navigate this content using the table of contents in the left-hand margin. Alternatively, search this tracker using [CTRL]+[F]. This material is not intended to be a comprehensive register of every appeal or major decision relevant to dispute resolution practitioners. Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 Tort and negligence ...

ARCHIVED: This tracker is archived and no longer updated. For an overview of Court of Protection cases from 2025 onwards, see: Court of Protection—table of cases. P, Re (Property & Affairs Deputyship: Jurisdiction) [2024] EWCOP 77 (T2) Court of Protection determines it has jurisdiction to consider whether P’s mother should continue as property and affairs deputy The proceedings related to P, an adult who sustained a brain injury in an accident and had a substantial personal injury claim. His mother had been appointed by the Court of Protection as his property and affairs deputy, and the present decision addressed an application seeking to revoke that appointment. The litigation had been protracted. Earlier, the court permitted ‘closed material’ to be withheld from P’s parents to facilitate capacity assessments; for a summary of that ruling, see here. Despite that step, neither the Official Solicitor nor the court gained clarity about P’s condition or even his location. It was reported that P was now residing in Italy. HHJ Burrows concluded that...

With effect from 6 April 2023, the provisions in CPR 19 were re-numbered and revised by the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2023, SI 2023/105—see: LNB News 02/02/2023 98—Amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules in force on 6 April 2023—The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2023. Further, modest revisions were made to CPR PD 19B by the 153rd Practice Direction update to the CPR—see: LNB News 07/02/2023 72—153rd Practice Direction update—changes in force 31 January 2023 and 6 April 2023. The provisions concerning group litigation orders (GLOs) are contained in CPR 19.21 to CPR 19.26 (previously CPR 19.10 to CPR 19.15) and CPR PD 19B. Note that many of the authorities cited below (handed down before 6 April 2023) use the prior numbering. Where the substance of a provision has altered since the judgment, this is clarified. Who may apply for a group litigation order and when? Importantly, subject to securing the necessary consent (see: Application for a GLO), the court may make a GLO of its own...