Judgment meaning

Introduction to freezing injunctions and scope of this checklist A freezing injunction (also known as a freezing order) is a temporary court order that prevents a respondent from disposing of or transferring its assets out of the relevant jurisdiction—namely England and Wales—or, in the case of a worldwide freezing order (WFO), from moving them anywhere in the world. The court’s principal aim in granting such relief is to preserve the respondent’s assets so that, if the applicant later obtains judgment against the respondent, there will be assets available for recovery by the applicant and, if necessary, enforcement action. This Checklist explains how to make an application for a freezing injunction where claims are contemplated or already underway in a corporate or personal insolvency context. As the precise circumstances of each matter must be assessed, this Checklist does not claim to be exhaustive; rather, it provides an overview of the key considerations at each stage when seeking an order of this kind. The focus throughout is asset preservation pending determination...

This Checklist on making a Part 36 offer identifies the key factors that should be considered when drafting a Part 36 offer. Consideration What a Part 36 offer can be made in relation to You may frame a Part 36 offer to cover the entirety of the claim, a defined part, or a particular issue. It can likewise address a counterclaim or any additional claim, and it may extend to an appeal or cross-appeal arising from a trial judgment. However, a Part 36 offer is not available for an appeal against an interlocutory ruling. Guidance When to make a Part 36 offer An offer under Part 36 can be served at any point, whether before proceedings are issued or once they are underway (CPR 36.7(1)). Where a matter proceeds to appeal, a new Part 36 offer should be advanced because the Part 36 consequences attach only to the costs of the proceedings in which the offer is made, and do not extend to the...

Procedural Guide This Procedural Guide explains the process for seeking an attachment of earnings order under the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 and the Family Procedure Rules 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 39, to enforce a maintenance order by directing deductions straight from a debtor’s earnings... Eligibility to apply Handling arrears exceeding 12 months Obligations of the employer and the debtor Where the judgment debtor is an employed individual, the judgment creditor may apply to enforce the judgment against the debtor’s wages or salary. If granted, the employer must make regular deductions from the debtor’s pay and remit those sums to the court. This is referred to as an attachment of earnings order (AEO). See also Practice Note: Attachment of earnings order... FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 39 applies to any proceedings that began, but were not concluded, before 6 April 2016 (when procedural amendments were introduced), in the same manner as it applies to proceedings commenced on or after that...

Practice Note: Contract interpretation—distinguishing between liquidated damages and penalty clauses As highlighted in this Practice Note, working out whether a liquidated damages provision will be struck down as a penalty is seldom straightforward and often demands careful judgment. Although each dispute turns on the court’s construction of the contract, there are several points to weigh when examining the ambit of a supposed liquidated damages term and its potential exposure to a penalty challenge, both in substance and effect. When you are drafting such a clause, it is vital to keep these considerations in view, and to think about how it sits alongside connected provisions, including any related terms that operate with it. See: Drafting and negotiating a liquidated damages clause—checklist Precedent: Liquidated damages clause For targeted analysis of the way authorities have treated provisions in commercial agreements that stipulate ‘default interest’, see the following materials: Penalty interest rates in commercial contracts Contract interpretation—distinguishing between liquidated damages and penalty...

ARCHIVED: This flowchart is retired and no longer under maintenance...

Stage 1—preparing to bring a claim and pre-action matters Guidance on UK trade mark infringement, offences, passing off, interim injunctions, running IP disputes, privilege, dispute resolution (mediation and arbitration), and the Disclosure Scheme; plus checklists and forms (injunction, application, hearing) Stage 2—Letter before action alleging infringement Notes on infringement, passing off, unjustified threats and drafting; includes a trade mark letter of claim precedent Stage 3—commencing proceedings Procedure, defences and exceptions, IPEC flowchart, pleadings and initial disclosure precedents, and CPR/Part 36 forms Stage 4—case management Procedure and Disclosure Scheme notes, court guides (Chancery, Patents Court, IPEC and Small Claims), and case management questionnaires, Disclosure Review Document, Certificate of Compliance, budgets and directions Stage 5—disclosure and evidence Surveys and witness evidence (PD 57AC), privilege, disclosure (including electronic) and flexible trials; witness statement and Extended Disclosure precedents; affidavits, applications and certificates Stage 6—trial...

Antitrust Court of Justice issues judgment in national reference from the Netherlands proposing that parity clauses are not ancillary restrictions for the purposes of EU competition law The Court of Justice has delivered its judgment in Case C- 264/23 Booking,com BV and Booking.com (Deutschland) GmbH v 25hours Hotel Company Berlin GmbH and Others, concerning a Dutch reference seeking clarification on whether wide and narrow parity clauses are ancillary restraints under Article 101(1) TFEU. The reference seeks guidance on their classification within EU competition rules under Article 101(1) of TFEU. Background Booking.com BV runs an online hotel reservation platform. Up to 2015, its agreements contained wide price parity obligations that stopped hotels from advertising cheaper room rates via their own direct channels and any other outlets, including rival online travel agencies (OTAs). Thereafter, Booking.com moved to narrow price parity undertakings, which bar hotels from offering lower prices through their direct sales channels; the Federal Court of Justice of Germany nonetheless held these also restrict competition. Booking.com and other...

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 ...

State aid General Court annuls Commission decision on Danish waste water treatment pricing The General Court delivered its ruling in Case T‑486/18 RENV, Danske Slagtermestre v Commission, on an appeal challenging the Commission’s decision in State aid Case SA.37433—Denmark, concerning alleged State aid arising from rebates on waste water charges. The proceedings were remitted to the General Court following the Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C‑99/21. For context, in 2013 Denmark passed legislation introducing a lower rate per cubic metre once a certain volume of waste water had been discharged, which resulted in diminished payments for the largest users of water services (the 2013 Law). Danske Slagtermestre, a trade association, submitted a complaint to the Commission contending that the 2013 Law bestowed State aid on major slaughterhouses by reducing their contributions for waste water treatment. It concerned waste water treatment pricing, examining whether volume-linked reductions conferred selective advantages on significant users, notably large slaughterhouses benefiting from discounted tariffs thereunder...

This tracker monitors current Court of Justice appeals concerning State aid (Articles 107–109 TFEU) and other aid recovery actions. For concluded matters, consult Court of Justice State aid appeals—closed cases tracker. Note—closed appeals are transferred from this page to the closed trackers within seven days of the final ruling. For the Commission’s recent State aid decisions, see EU State aid decisions—ongoing cases tracker; for appeals pending before the General Court, see General Court State aid appeals—ongoing cases tracker; and for national references before the Court of Justice touching on State aid, see Court of Justice State aid national references—ongoing cases tracker. Appeals from the General Court Case C-306/26 P, LM v Commission — Appeal against the General Court’s order in Case T-261/25 declaring inadmissible an annulment action concerning parts of Commission decision SA.44944—Tax treatment of public casinos in Germany and SA.53552—Alleged guarantee for public casinos in Germany (Wirtschaftlichkeitsgarantie). Latest development: Lodged—07/04/2026. Case C-505/24 P, Condor Flugdienst v Ryanair —...

CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment of 7 December 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission’s readopted infringement decision of 17 December 2020, which imposed a reduced fine amounting to €9.4m (AT.39563). Latest development On 7 December 2022, the General Court delivered its judgment and dismissed the appeal in full. In particular, it found that: (i) CCPL grasped the Commission’s reasoning, and the material presented by CCPL was insufficient to overturn the presumption applied by the Commission that CCPL exercised decisive influence over entities within the CCPL group; and (iii) the Commission did not err in concluding that a fine reduction can only be warranted by the aim of preventing the undertaking’s economic viability from being irreparably endangered and its assets stripped of value, so the applicant’s intention to develop operating companies of the CCPL group cannot, in principle, justify such...

This Practice Note on economic torts This note summarises, at a high level, the key differences when pursuing claims for lawful means conspiracy, unlawful means conspiracy, the tort of unlawful interference, and procuring a breach of contract. Practice Notes: Civil conspiracy claims (economic tort) Lawful means conspiracy (civil action) Unlawful means conspiracy (civil action) Economic tort of unlawful interference The tort of procuring a breach of contract Closely connected to procuring a breach of contract is the so‑called ‘Marex tort’, a cause of action founded on an alleged deliberate infringement by the defendant of the claimant’s rights in a judgment debt; see Practice Note: The Marex tort (interference with a judgment debt). These claims may (though need not) involve a fiduciary or agent, including company directors. For further guidance, see: Claims against directors—key considerations for dispute resolution practitioners Agency disputes Fiduciary Duties Fiduciary duties—remedies for breach Such causes...

Claim No. [ enter claim number ]...

[ Insert date ] [ Insert ] Employment Tribunal [ insert address ] To the [ insert ] Employment Tribunal [ Insert case name ] Case No: [ Insert case number ] Application under Rule 74 We hereby apply under Rule 74 for the [ Claimant OR Respondent ]’s costs in relation to the judgment issued to the parties on [ insert date ]. [ We ask that a hearing be listed to consider the particulars of this application. OR We ask that this application is decided solely on written representations to avoid the parties attending a hearing and incurring further associated costs. ] Grounds for application We seek an order for costs on the basis that: [ insert applicable grounds under Rule 74 ] EXAMPLE 1 The Respondent behaved unreasonably in the conduct of part of the proceedings, namely by disputing that the Claimant was a disabled person for the purposes of section 6 of the...

1 Interest on late payment If a party does not make payment in accordance with this Agreement, the other party may claim, in addition to any sum that ought properly to have been settled, and recover, [ simple OR compound ] interest on that sum (accruing on a daily basis from the final date for payment until the date payment is in fact made, whether before or after judgment). Such interest will be computed at a rate of [ insert figure ]% per annum above the [ insert name of financial institution eg Bank of England ] base rate then prevailing at the time the amount immediately became overdue under this Agreement. [ The parties agree that the provisions of this clause constitute a substantial remedy for the purposes of section 9(1) of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. ]...

Under WTR 1998, workers get 5.6 weeks’ annual leave each year: a basic entitlement of four weeks’ leave (20 days for a standard full‑time worker) implementing article 7 of the Working Time Directive (WTD) an additional 1.6 weeks’ leave (eight days for a standard full‑time worker) created by domestic law only Understanding this distinction is important because: European Court of Justice case law concerns the WTD alone, so it applies only to the basic four weeks’ paid leave holiday pay is calculated differently for: the basic four weeks, and the additional 1.6 weeks The general rules as to the right to carry forward accrued holiday entitlement are that: the basic four weeks must be taken in the leave year earned and cannot be carried over (though an employer may choose to allow it) a relevant agreement may allow the additional 1.6...

Response to appeal Under the Employment Appeal Rules 1993 (EAT Rules), SI 1993/2854, rule 6(2) provides that a respondent who intends to oppose an appeal must lodge with the Appeal Tribunal a written answer in accordance with, or broadly following, Form 3 contained in the Schedule to these Rules, setting out the grounds on which they rely. Nevertheless, where the respondent seeks to rely on any ground that mirrors a ground adopted by the employment tribunal when making the judgment, decision, declaration or order under appeal, it is sufficient simply to say so in the answer, and it shall be sufficient to state that fact in response. For further details, see Practice Note: Responding to an appeal...

Money Claim Online is available for issuing claims for a defined monetary amount below £100,000, excluding interest and costs. The approach to costs mirrors that applied to any other claim brought under CPR Part 7. The fixed costs regime A claim falls within the fixed costs regime where no acknowledgement of service or defence is lodged, or where the defendant admits the claim. In that situation, the claimant may seek judgment through Money Claim Online by submitting the online request form. Once judgment is entered, the claimant’s legal representative is entitled to the fixed costs under CPR 45.4, as listed in Table 2 of CPR 45, which, for a claim over £5,000, range from £30 to £70 depending on the circumstances in which judgment is obtained...