JET meaning

Mergers AG advises Court of Justice to reject appeal against conditional Phase II clearance of the PKN/Gupto Lotos merger Advocate General Medina has delivered his opinion in Case C-541/23 P, Polwax v Commission, an appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T-585/20 that upheld the Commission’s 14 July 2020 decision conditionally clearing the acquisition of PKN Orlen after a Phase II investigation (M.9104). He recommends that the Court of Justice dismiss the first ground of appeal, which concerns the definition of the upstream market. Background On 14 July 2020, the Commission approved, subject to conditions, the proposed acquisition of Lotos by PKN Orlen (the Commission’s 2020 decision). Lotos and LKN Orlen were two large Polish integrated oil and gas companies. Following its Phase II review, the Commission concluded that the merger would harm competition, notably in the following areas: the wholesale and retail supply of motor fuels in Poland; the supply of jet fuel in Poland and the Czech Republic; and ...

D’Angelin v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 462 (TC) The taxpayer was UK-resident but not domiciled and used the remittance basis. In 2016 he brought £1.5m of overseas income to the UK and placed it into a UK company where he was the sole shareholder and director. That company operated providing advice to international clients and family-owned holdings. He claimed business investment relief under section 809VA of the Income Tax Act 2007 (ITA 2007) in relation to the investment, with the result that the £1.5m was treated as not remitted to the UK (and therefore not taxable). During 2017/18 he used the company credit card for private spending, from an iTunes subscription through to the personal use of a jet, and those outgoings were posted to his director’s loan account. The balance on that account peaked at about £71,000. At all times he held sufficient personal funds either to clear the loan account or to have met those expenses personally from his own funds, which were sufficient at all times to...

Gama Aviation (UK) Ltd and Another v MWWMMWM Ltd [2022] EWHC 1191 (Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? Key takeaways for practitioners include: NOM clauses: A party’s contractual rights and duties can be altered not only by variation but also by novation or termination. Anyone aiming to prevent such informal changes should adopt wording that makes this intention explicitly clear. contractual rights to terminate: Even where a clause grants a unilateral right to terminate by written notice, this may not stop the contract being discharged by an informal novation; whether it does will turn on the clause’s wording and the surrounding context. on covenants: As only reasons that genuinely influenced a party’s mind can justify the reasonableness of a refusal of consent, a party withholding consent should record its reasons at the time. The decision also supports interpreting such qualifications as rendering the covenants conditional on the covenantee acting reasonably, with the effect that the covenantor will be entitled validly to carry...

This Practice Note examines the principles governing the tort whereby a defendant deliberately interferes with a claimant’s rights in a judgment debt. For wider guidance on enforcing judgments, see: Introduction to enforcement—overview and related content. What is the Marex tort? The Marex tort describes a tort-based cause of action premised on an alleged intentional infringement of the claimant’s rights in a judgment debt. Its contours were first confirmed by Bryan J in 2021 in Lakatamia v Su, having been raised by Knowles J in 2017 in Marex v Garcia (also known as Marex v Sevilleja). See: Marex tort—history below. In Lakatamia v Su, Lakatamia pursued two claims against the defendants, Mr Su and his mother, Madam Su, including: unlawful means conspiracy—alleging a concerted plan to harm Lakatamia by unlawful means, through breaches of a 2011 worldwide freezing order in related Commercial Court proceedings against Mr Su (the Blair Freezing Order), by procuring the dissipation of two of Mr Son’s assets: the net sale proceeds...

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained Keeping abreast of case law that shapes a practitioner’s specialism, or influences civil litigation procedure generally, is a persistent challenge for those working in dispute resolution. This Practice Note distils the leading appeal authorities—decisions of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, and, where relevant, selected judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)—that we have reported, giving users straightforward access to those rulings. Use the table of contents in the left margin to browse, or locate items quickly with [CTRL]+[F]. It also sets out a selection of forthcoming appeals, where known, to aid horizon scanning. The material is not intended to be a comprehensive catalogue of every appeal and/or significant decision for dispute resolution practitioners. Key forthcoming appeal cases—2019 Terminating contracts—frustration Canary Wharf (BP4) T1 Ltd v European Medicines Agency [2019] EWHC 921 (Ch)—Court of Appeal: permission to appeal granted in the lower court...

The purpose of pre-action disclosure An applicant may invite the court to compel a would‑be defendant in civil proceedings to hand over, before any claim is issued and before proceedings have begun, documents probably within that party’s control which would, in due course, fall to be produced as part of standard disclosure in the action. It is, therefore, a mandatory, front‑loaded form of disclosure. The court’s authority to grant such relief derives from section 33(2) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and CPR 31.16. The court must first be satisfied it has jurisdiction (the threshold conditions being met) and then determine, as a matter of discretion, whether to grant the order. In practice, a potential defendant can apply against a potential claimant, though that route is uncommon. While the prospective claim must be “more than a merely speculative punt” (Moore‑Bick LJ in Jet Airways (India) Ltd v Barloworld Handling Ltd), applicants may, in some instances, seek disclosure to reinforce the prospects of their intended claim. They will be seeking...