Featured documents
R (Greyhound Board of Great Britain Ltd) v Welsh Ministers [2026] EWHC 670 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling reinforces the constitutional divide between the courts and the legislature. It explains that the scheme and framework of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (GWA 2006) embody that separation of powers, and that any judicial attempt to recognise and enforce a common law obligation on Welsh Ministers to consult prior to introducing legislation in the Senedd would trespass upon that boundary. This is not a departure from established principle; case law has already upheld comparable rules for lawmakers in Scotland and at Westminster. However, this is the first express confirmation of the position for Welsh lawmakers, and the first time this dimension of the GWA 2006 has been analysed in such depth. The court examined earlier
The solution arrived through the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), a quasi‑judicial body handling mass claims, created under UN Security Council Resolution 687. By addressing environmental harm—most notably via its ‘F4’ claim class—the UNCC set a seminal benchmark shaping how international law and contemporary arbitral panels allocate financial responsibility for wartime ecological devastation. With present-day wars in areas such as Eastern Europe and the Middle East bringing dam breaches, strikes on chemical facilities, and the burning of farmland, the UNCC’s legacy endures as an essential reference point for states, global investors, and companies engaged in post‑conflict arbitration. The F4 claims: Quantifying the unquantifiable Prior to the 1990s, mechanisms in international law for war reparations overwhelmingly favoured property loss, foregone earnings, and bodily injury. The natural world was commonly treated as a mute, non-compensable victim of armed hostilities...
Understanding the farming business as a business Many farms still use long-standing structures that arose by habit, not strategy. Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common. While once effective, such setups can cause major issues around succession, tax planning and involving the next generation. A corporate team can take a fresh, business-led view of the farm, asking: Who owns the land and other critical assets? Who manages daily operations? Who carries the risk and who enjoys the return? What is the enduring plan for succession? From this review, the team can confirm whether the current setup is fit for purpose or if an alternative — for example an updated partnership agreement, a company, a limited liability partnership, or a blended model — would better meet the family’s aims. Tax efficiency through joined-up advice Tax sits at the centre of most
Most recent News
Mergers The Commission has given the green light to The TURNER Corporation’s acquisition of sole control over Dornan Engineering Holdings Limited ( M.11683) following a phase I review—see Midday Express for more. The Commission has also received the notification in KKR/ Baupost/ JV ( M.11763) under the simplified merger procedure. Note— For all active merger investigations before the Commission, see the EU mergers—ongoing cases tracker. Russia’s war against Ukraine Under the Temporary Crisis and Transition Framework, the Commission has approved a Romanian scheme (worth €500m) to support investments in new biofuel production capacities—see Midday Express for details. Note— For all Commission decisions adopted under the Temporary Crisis Framework, and the Temporary Crisis and Transition Framework, in the context of Russia’s war against Ukraine, see Conflict in Ukraine— EU State aid...
Illumina v Commission; Grail v Commission — Joined cases C-611/22 P and C-625/22 P What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Justice has unequivocally dismissed the expansive reading of Article 22 that had permitted the Commission to examine transactions that were not notifiable at EU or Member State level. Transactions that do not satisfy the relevant jurisdictional thresholds can no longer be referred. Nevertheless, M& A parties should note that the Commission has reiterated its wish for legal instruments to intervene in ‘those few cases where a deal would have an impact in Europe but does not otherwise meet the EU notification thresholds’ ( Executive Vice- President, Margrethe Vestager). This remains in line with the Commission’s conclusions in its ‘2021 Evaluation on the procedural aspects of EU merger control’. The Commission is also still prepared to entertain Article 22...
Mergers The CMA has released the complete text of its decision to accept undertakings in place of referring the completed acquisition by Barratt Development plc of Redrow plc for a phase 2 inquiry—see further, decision NOTE— For all current merger before the CMA, see further, UK mergers—ongoing cases tracker Upcoming dates For dates of forthcoming UK competition developments, see further, UK Competition calendar......
Mergers The CMA imposed an IEO regarding Topps Tiles Plc’s completed acquisition of certain assets from Tildist Realisations Limited (formerly CTD Tiles Limited)—see case page. NOTE— For all current CMA merger cases, see UK mergers—ongoing cases tracker. Subsidy control The Subsidy Advice Unit accepted a referral from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on proposed Industrial Carbon Capture and Waste ICC business model schemes—see case page. The Subsidy Advice Unit accepted a referral from the same department on a proposed subsidy for Cromarty Firth Port Authority—see case page. NOTE— For all referrals under the Subsidy Control Act 2022, see UK subsidy control—cases tracker. Private actions On 2 October 2024, the CAT issued an order in The Scottish Ministers and The Scottish Health Boards v Accord‑ UK Limited (formerly Actavis UK Limited) & Others, a damages claim against...
In this issue: UK mergers UK antitrust EU antitrust EU State aid Lex Talk®Competition: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Caselex UK mergers Tereos fined for failure to comply with requirements of CMA information during phase 2 investigation The CMA issued a notice, dated 25 September 2024, imposing a penalty on Tereos SCA and Tereos United Kingdom and Ireland Limited (together, Tereos) under section 110 of the Enterprise Act 2002 for failing to comply with a section 109 notice served by the CMA. That notice required the supply of board minutes and internal materials concerning Board and corporate governance during the phase 2 investigation. A fine of £25,000 was levied. The CMA concluded that Tereos had not, by the deadline, delivered all the information sought. In particular, Tereos did not provide Board...
Mergers The Commission authorised the joint control acquisition of Aqua Green by Marubeni Corporation, Nordic Alpha Partners Fund and FMG Circular Invest ( M.11691) following phase I—see further, Midday Express. The Commission has been notified of the PSG Equity/ Rivean Capital/ Corilus deal ( M.11668) under the simplified merger procedure. NOTE— For all ongoing merger investigations before the Commission, see further, EU mergers—ongoing cases tracker. State aid Under EU State aid rules, the Commission approved a Polish scheme (valued at €120m) to develop intermodal transport in Poland—see further, Midday Express. NOTE— For all live State aid decisions and live formal State aid investigations, see further, EU State aid decisions—ongoing cases tracker. Russia invasion of Ukraine Operating under the Temporary Crises and Transition Framework, the Commission approved a French scheme (worth €120m) to support winegrowers in the context of Russia’s war against Ukraine—see further, Midday...
Antitrust General Court dismisses appeal against re-adopted fine for non-compete agreement The General Court has delivered its judgment in Case T-181/22, Pharol v Commission, on an appeal against the Commission’s re-adopted Article 101 TFEU decision concerning a non-compete arrangement between Telefónica and Portugal Telecom (now Pharol) affecting the Iberian telecommunications market ( AT.39839). The General Court rejected the appeal in its entirety and maintained the revised fine. Background In 2010, Telefónica and Portugal Telecom—later renamed Pharol—concluded an agreement for Telefónica to purchase Pharol’s shareholding in the Brazilian mobile operator Vivo. The contract included a non-compete clause that prevented both companies from competing with one another in the Iberian telecommunications markets until 2011. In 2013, the Commission adopted an infringement decision, finding that the non-compete breached Article 101 TFEU. It imposed fines of €66.9m on Telefónica and €12.3m on Pharol (the Commission’s 2013...
Antitrust CMA publishes warning and advisory letter maps The CMA has published maps pinpointing where across the UK the 557 warning and advisory letters on competition law were sent between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2023. Where it has indications that particular business practices could harm competition, but decides not to commence a formal investigation on grounds of priority, the CMA may issue advisory or warning letters to businesses. These communications flag concerns that recipients might be breaching competition rules and encourage them to comply. Receiving such a warning or advisory letter does not, by itself, show that competition law has been broken. The letters set out the CMA’s worries about specified practices and recommend that the business conducts a self‑assessment to ensure compliance with competition law. A warning letter will also ask the business to write to the CMA with details of what it has...
Mergers The Commission approved the takeover of Lombard International Assurance Holdings S.à.r.l....
Antitrust The CMA has revised the schedule for its continuing investigation into the Atlantic Joint Business Agreement involving American Airlines, the International Consolidated Airlines group ( British Airways, Iberia and Aer Lingus), and Finnair, pursuant to Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998......
Mergers The CMA has decided that Amazon.com, Inc’s partnership with Anthropic PBC is not a qualifying merger under the Enterprise Act 2002—see further, case page. NOTE— For live CMA mergers, see UK mergers—ongoing cases tracker. Private actions The CAT has published two opt-out collective proceedings applications under section 47B Competition Act 1998: Vicki Shotbolt Class Representative v Valve Corporation, on behalf of UK-based consumers, alleging abuse of dominance contrary to Article 102 TFEU and/or Chapter II in PC video games and related add-on content—see further, application. Professor Barry Rodger v Google and others, for UK-based consumers, alleging breaches of Article 102 TFEU and/or Chapter II in Android app distribution and the licensable smart mobile OS markets—see further, application. NOTE— For UK private actions made public, see UK private actions—ongoing cases...
Mergers The CMA has issued an extension to the inquiry timetable under section 39(4) of the Enterprise Act 2002 in Spreadex/ Sporting Index, as Spread and Spread. Com Limited failed to supply documents and information under section 109 of the Enterprise Act 2002—see the case page for details. Note— For all live mergers before the CMA, see UK mergers—ongoing cases tracker. Upcoming dates For dates of forthcoming UK competition developments, see the UK Competition calendar......
Mergers The Commission approved the proposed transaction conferring joint control over SFS Group B. V....
Mergers The Commission cleared, following phase I reviews: Exyte Gmb H’s purchase of Kinetics Holdings Gmb H ( M.11559)—see press release; Alten SA’s takeover of sole control of Worldgrid France SAS and assets of the Worldgrid Smart Energy Solutions segment ( M.11632)—see Midday Express; a joint venture by Egis Airport Operation SAS, Egis Investment Partners France II SCA, Bouygues Construction Airport Concessions and Impact V S.à r.l. ( M.11705)—see Midday Express; and joint control of Hargreaves Lansdown by Nordic Capital XI Limited, CVC Capital Partners plc and Platinum Ivy B 2018 RSC ( M.11716)—see Midday Express. Notifications: CVC/ Fidelio/ Odevo ( M.11735) (simplified); Sonoco/ Eviosys ( M.11637) (simplified); VTTI/ SNAM/ ALNG ( M.11568) (normal). NOTE— For live mergers, see EU mergers—ongoing cases tracker. State aid The Commission approved, under EU state aid rules, €102m French support to modernise the Naye terminal at the port of...
Antitrust Co J upholds Commission’s 2018 Gazprom commitment decision The Court of Justice has delivered its judgment in Case C-255/22 P, Orlen v Commission, an appeal targeting the General Court’s 2022 ruling in Case T-616/18, which had dismissed a challenge to the Commission’s 2018 decision accepting binding commitments from Gazprom under Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003. Those commitments were designed to tackle competition concerns that Gazprom had abused its dominant position in Central and Eastern European gas markets. The Court of Justice rejected the appeal, thereby confirming the Commission’s 2018 commitment decision. Background Between 2011 and 2015, the Commission undertook several steps to scrutinise how gas markets functioned in central and eastern Europe. In September 2012, it opened a probe into Gazprom concerning gas supply in eight Member States. In April 2015, the Commission issued a statement of objections to Gazprom, alleging that a range of...
Mergers Tereos fined for failure to comply with requirements of CMA information during phase 2 investigation The CMA has issued a notice, dated 25 September 2024, penalising Tereos SCA and Tereos United Kingdom and Ireland Limited (together, Tereos) under section 110 of the Enterprise Act 2002 for failing to comply with a section 109 notice that required the provision of board minutes and internal documents relating to Board and corporate governance. The CMA levied a £25,000 fine. Tereos did not supply all information sought by the deadline. Board minutes were only submitted after the CMA prompted compliance. Other documents falling within the notice’s scope were not provided. Without further CMA enquiries after the main party hearing, a significant volume of responsive material would not have been produced. Tereos adopted an unjustifiably narrow...
In this edition: UK antitrust EU antitrust EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation EU State aid Daily and weekly news alerts Lex Talk®Competition: a Lexis®Nexis community New and updated content Caselex UK antitrust Public Transport Ticketing Schemes Block Exemption: CMA launches consultation on proposed recommendations The CMA has opened a consultation on its provisional recommendation to advise the Secretary of State for Business and Trade that the Competition Act 1998 ( Public Transport Ticketing Schemes Block Exemption) Order (the Order) should remain in force beyond its current term as a continuing block exemption. This follows an April 2024 call for inputs on the Order. First brought into effect in 2001, the Order removes specified integrated ticketing arrangements—agreed between transport operators—from the scope of the Chapter I prohibition in the Competition Act, and it was most recently extended in 2016. The block...
Market studies The CMA released an update on the conduct of its market probe into veterinary services for domestic pets and simultaneously amended its administrative timetable accordingly......
Private actions The CAT issued an order, dated 24 September 2024, in the case BSV Claims Limited v Bittylicious Limited & Others, a damages claim brought by BSV Claims Limited against Bittylicious Limited and additional parties, alleging infringements of Article 101 TFEU and/or Chapter I prohibition on the premise that the defendants co-ordinated to de-list the Bitcoin Satoshi Vision ( BSV) cryptocurrency in 2019, resulting......
Popular documents
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews mechanisms used in settling litigation. A Tomlin order consists of a consent order paired with a schedule. It operates to stay proceedings on terms that have been agreed. The provisions contained in the schedule may remain confidential. This Practice Note describes the scope of confidentiality attaching to the schedule and sets out how it differs from a standard consent order. Sample wording for a Tomlin order is included, alongside links to precedents, as well as guidance on court approval. It also addresses varying, setting aside and enforcing a Tomlin order, including the considerations the court will take into account when handling applications for each. Further guidance is provided on interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the CPR; however, some courts and divisions impose very specific requirements for both drafting and approval, and for approaching the schedule and confidentiality issues. Accordingly, you must consider the particular rules and court guide provisions in the forum where your claim is proceeding when drawing up the Tomlin order...
Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Landlord) [ name of Tenant ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Tenant) [ [ name of Guarantor ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Guarantor) ] [ [ name of Mortgagee ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Mortgagee) ] Definitions Within this Deed, the terms below shall be interpreted as follows: [ Annual Rent • the annual sum reserved under the Lease; ] [ Insurance Rent • the Tenant’s share of the Landlord’s costs of insuring the Property (as set out in the Lease); ] Lease • the lease of the Property dated [ date ], entered into between (1) [ the Landlord OR [ name ...
I, [ name ], of [ address ], solemnly and sincerely state that: [ Matters to be verified, set out in numbered paragraphs ] I make this solemn statement in good conscience, believing it to be true, and pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. DECLARED at [ details ] this [ day ] day of [ month and year ] Before me ................................................................................ [ signature of the person before whom the declaration is made ] A [ commissioner for oaths OR [ solicitor OR [ insert other qualification ] ] authorised to administer oaths ]...
Discover more from LexisNexis
