Featured documents
This Practice Note outlines the law concerning criminal recklessness. The subjective test for recklessness Certain statutory and common law offences allow the prosecution to prove mens rea through ‘recklessness’. Put simply, recklessness is where the accused takes an unjustified risk that results in unlawful harm or damage. The House of Lords in R v G reaffirmed the subjective approach to recklessness. Before R v G, two distinct tests were used, depending on the offence charged: Subjective recklessness from R v Cunningham: the prosecution had to establish that the accused personally foresaw the risk. Objective recklessness from R v Caldwell: the prosecution only needed to show that the risk would have been obvious to a reasonable person, without proving the accused themselves foresaw it. In R v G, the House of Lords concluded that the objective test could operate unfairly where a defendant did not foresee the
This Practice Note examines the remedy of rescission, explaining when and in what manner a contract can be unwound (at common law, in equity and under statute) and thereby terminated and brought to an end. It covers the consequences and effects of rescission, the principal grounds for setting aside an agreement (misrepresentation, mistake, undue influence, duress, non‑disclosure, fiduciary misdealing and bribery) and the main obstacles to claiming rescission—affirmation, the intervention of third‑party rights and the impossibility of restitution. For further guidance on rescission in the context of misrepresentation, see Practice Note: Misrepresentation—rescission as a remedy. There are many ways in which a contract may reach its end; see: Terminating contracts—how and when a contract ends—overview for a brief and accessible summary, with links to the related further practical guidance, including Practice Note: Termination and expiry of contracts. For a table
What is a res judicata? A res judicata is a determination by a court or tribunal with jurisdiction over the cause of action and the parties, which finally disposes of the issues decided so they cannot be litigated again by those bound, save on appeal. Final judgments entered by default or by consent fall within this concept, whereas rulings on purely procedural points and any decision lacking finality do not. The doctrine’s aim is to bring litigation to an end and shield parties from being harassed by the same dispute twice. in personam—binds the parties and their privies in rem—binds all persons, privy or otherwise (ie a judgment binding the whole world) A party may rely on res judicata: as an estoppel to defeat an opponent’s claim or defence; and/or as the basis of their own claim or
The offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent can be tried solely in the Crown Court on indictment. Elements of the offence Under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (OATPA 1861), the prosecution must establish that the defendant unlawfully and maliciously: wounded with the intention of causing GBH, or caused GBH with that intention, or wounded intending to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of any person, or caused GBH intending to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of any person ‘Unlawfully’ and ‘maliciously’ Unlawfully The wounding or causing of GBH must be unlawful. Such conduct may be lawful if used: in self-defence in defence of another in defence of property for the prevention of crime where the victim gave express or implied consent For further information on these defences, see below:
Most recent Practice notes
Case facts Outline An appeal brought by Dye & Durham Limited and Dye & Durham ( UK) Limited against the CMA’s decision of 29 March 2023 regarding the required divestment of TMG Group ( UK) Limited, following the CMA’s phase 2 inquiry into the completed acquisition of TMG Group ( UK) Limited by Dye & Durham ( UK) Limited Latest development On 21 May 2021, the CAT delivered its judgment, unanimously dismissing the appeal. It concluded there was no error in: (i) determining that the proposal advanced by Dye & Durham ( UK) Limited would necessitate a variation of the final divestment undertaking; (ii) declining to amend the final undertakings to incorporate Dye & Durham ( UK) Limited’s proposal; and (iii) deciding that the purchaser approval criteria—independence, competence and capacity—would not be met by Dye & Durham ( UK) Limited’s...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal filed before the General Court in Case T-156/22. ARCHIVED—this hub records the position as at the decision date of 13/01/2022 and is not being updated. See also timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline of the European Commission’s merger review into Hyundai Heavy Industries Holding’s planned purchase of Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering Co Ltd ( Case M.9343). The deal featured horizontal overlaps across multiple global markets for cargo shipbuilding. Latest developments On 13 January 2022, the Commission blocked the deal. It found that combining HHI and DMSE would grant the merged entity a dominant position and lessen competition in the worldwide market for constructing large liquefied gas carriers. The parties did not submit formal remedies to address the Commission’s concerns, indicating that the merger would have resulted in fewer suppliers and increased prices for large vessels transporting liquefied...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this hub reflects the position as at the judgment of 12 December 2014 and is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Applications were brought before the General Court seeking annulment, partial annulment and/or reductions in the individual fines arising from the Commission decision of 1 October 2008, which found infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement... The decision levied combined fines of €676m on nine company groups for alleged participation in a price‑fixing and market/customer allocation cartel relating to the supply of paraffin waxes in the European Economic Area ( EEA) and slack wax in Germany between 1992 and 2005 (the ‘ Candle waxes’ cartel)... On 12 December 2014, the General Court reduced the penalty imposed on Eni, while dismissing all other actions in their...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this stored case hub captures the situation as at the decision dated 25 July 2013; it is not being updated. For details, consult the timeline, commentary, and connected cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU inquiry into anti-competitive arrangements in the e-books market (case number COMP/39.847). Latest developments Undertakings proposed by Simon & Schuster, Harper Collins, Hachette, Holtzbrinck and Apple were approved by the European Commission on 13 December 2012, and undertakings submitted by Penguin were accepted by the Commission on 25 July 2013.......
This table presents all finalised cases referred to the Subsidy Advice Unit ( SAU) under the Subsidy Control Act 2022 ( SCA 2022). For updates on active referrals under the SCA 2022, see: UK subsidy control—ongoing cases tracker. For information on appeals against subsidy control decisions, see: UK subsidy control—appeals tracker... 2026 Referral of the proposed Bus Network Support Grant subsidy scheme by West Midlands Combined Authority — Sector: Transport Report released—11/05/2026 SAU accepted the referral request—26/03/2026 Referral of the proposed Mayoral Revolving Growth Subsidy Scheme by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government — Sector: Building and construction Report...
1. What is the applicable legislation? Turkey’s foreign direct investment ( FDI) framework is principally governed by the Foreign Direct Investments Law No. 4875 and the Regulation on the Implementation of the Foreign Direct Investment Law No. 4875, collectively the General FDI Legislation. Corporate matters are, in general, dealt with under the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 alongside the FDI rules. In addition, a wide range of supplementary instruments — statutes, circulars, by‑laws and sector‑specific rules — contain FDI‑related provisions, including the Mining Law No. 3213; the Law on Establishment and Broadcasting Services of Radios and Televisions No. 6112; the Banking Law No. 5411; the Turkish Civil Aviation Law No. 2920; the Cabotage Law No. 815; the Private Educational Institutions Law No. 5580; the Land Registry Law No. 2644; Decree No. 32 on the Protection of the Value of the Turkish Currency; and the Law No. 4054 on...
This Practice Note monitors all developments concerning Regulation ( EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives ( EU) 2019/1937 and ( EU) 2020/1828 (the Digital Markets Act— DMA). It followed the DMA through the ordinary legislative procedure up to its entry into force in 2022. It now records notable steps in the DMA’s implementation and enforcement. Background In a mission letter dated 1 December 2019, Dr Ursula von der Leyen tasked Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager with ensuring that competition policy and rules are fit for the modern economy and with strengthening competition enforcement in all sectors. Drawing on expert reports and an E-commerce Sector Inquiry, the Commission in June 2020 opened a consultation on an Inception Impact Assessment for a New...
Choice of venue— Chancery Division or Commercial Court? The High Court is empowered to determine both follow-on competition proceedings and stand‑alone claims. Pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction on Competition Law (the ‘ PD Competition Law’), proceedings are ordinarily allocated to the Competition List within the Chancery Division of the High Court, as a default position, unless they fall within CPR rule 58.1, in which case they are directed to the Commercial Court of the Queen’s Bench Division. Matters issued in the Chancery Division may draw on judges who have also accumulated specialist competition expertise through their parallel sittings in the Competition Appeal Tribunal, by virtue of their dual appointments. By contrast, the Commercial Court is often preferred by claimants for its business‑orientated ethos and, in particular, its familiarity with effectively managing...
Below is a record of every Commission preliminary probe concluded under the Foreign Subsidies Regulation ( EU) ( Regulation 2022/2560) (the FSR). For details on all live Commission FSR enquiries, see: Foreign Subsidies Regulation—ongoing cases tracker. For information on all finalised Commission in‑depth reviews, see: FSR in‑depth investigations—closed cases tracker. For updates on challenges before the General Court and the Court of Justice, see: General Court FSR appeals—ongoing cases tracker and Court of Justice FSR appeals—ongoing cases tracker. 2026 Case ( Case number) Type of assessment Industry sector Latest development Salzgitter Mannesmann/ Hüttenwerke Kruppe Mannesmann ( FS.100311) Concentration Manufacture of basic iron and steel and of ferro‑alloys • Deadline has passed—13/05/2026 • Notification—07/04/2026 Orange/ Masorange ( FS.100292) Concentration Wired, wireless, and satellite telecommunications activities • Deadline passed—13/05/2026 •...
An interview with Peter Harper, partner, and Annabel Borg, legal director at international law firm Eversheds Sutherland, exploring key questions on merger control in the UK. NOTE–to check whether UK and worldwide filing thresholds are triggered, consult Where to Notify... 1. Have there been any recent changes to the regime and are further updates anticipated over the next year? Are there other ‘hot’ merger control topics in the UK? Revised thresholds From 1 January 2025, the thresholds shifted following commencement of the competition provisions in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 ( DMCCA). The DMCCA delivered three principal amendments to the UK merger control thresholds: raised the target turnover test from £70 million to £100 million (the public interest intervention bar for media mergers remains £70 million); brought in a fresh threshold for certain vertical and conglomerate deals, notably so‑called ‘killer...
CASE HUB NOTE-appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C- 509/21 and C- 508/21 ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment of 9 June 2021 and is no longer updated. See also the timeline and commentary... Case facts Outline Proceedings for annulment before the General Court against the Commission’s decision of 4 October 2018, which found that the absence of a deposit on specified drinks packaging sold by German border shops to customers resident in Denmark did not amount to State aid ( Case SA.44865)... Latest developments On 9 June 2021, the General Court handed down its judgment and upheld the appeal. Consequently, the Court annulled the Commission’s 2018 decision... Parties Applicants: Dansk Erhverv Defendant: European Commission (the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED -this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 1 December 2024; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Summary of the UK merger investigation into the completed purchase by NEC Software Solutions UK Limited of SSS Public Safety Limited and Secure Solutions USA LLC (formerly part of Capita plc). The deal entails horizontal overlap in the provision of critical software to emergency service organisations (covering police forces, fire and rescue services, and ambulance trusts) and to transport service providers (including Tf L and rail operators). Latest developments On 1 December 2022, the CMA published its final report, concluding the transaction would be expected to lead to an SLC in the supply of: (i) integrated communication and control services software used by control room personnel; and (ii) specialised duties management systems software for police forces. To...
CASE HUB NOTE-appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 284/21 P See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Proceedings seek annulment before the General Court of the European Commission’s decision dated 4 July 2017, which concluded that Italy’s plan to recapitalise Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena complied with State aid rules ( SA.47677). Latest developments On 24 February 2021, the General Court delivered a preliminary judgment rejecting the Commission’s plea of inadmissibility. It found that the bondholders (a representative and FRESH bond holders) have standing to contest the 2017 decision, as the State aid approval was contingent upon those bondholders also absorbing significant costs. Parties Applicants: Anthony Bresch Trinity Investments DAC Bybrook Capital Master Fund LP Bybrook Capital Master Fund LP Bybrook Capital Hazelton Master Fund, and Byrook Capital Badminton Fund LP (collectively, the...
NOTE-to check whether notification thresholds in Lebanon and worldwide are satisfied, consult Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Lebanese merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Lebanon? In early 2022, Lebanon passed its first all-embracing competition statute, Law 281/2022 on the Competition Law ( Competition Law 2022), which took effect on 17 March 2022. This instrument constitutes the country’s inaugural, fully fledged competition framework and brought in a modern antitrust and merger control system. Before the Competition Law 2022 became operative, Lebanon lacked a standalone or specific competition statute. Instead, competition issues were addressed only by a handful of basic provisions scattered across different enactments, including Law 34-67/1967 on Commercial Agencies, Law 73-83/1983 on Acquisition of Goods and Agricultural Crops, and Resolution 2385/1924...
CASE HUB NOTE-appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C‑297/22 ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment dated 23 February 2022; it is no longer maintained. For more, see the timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline: Two separate claims sought monetary compensation for economic harm allegedly arising from the Commission’s decision of 30 January 2013 banning the United Parcel Services/ TNT Express merger ( Case M.6570). Latest developments On 23 February 2022, the General Court delivered its judgments, rejecting the damages actions in their entirety. In Case T‑834/17, the Court held, amongst other matters, that UPS had not shown that any violation of its procedural rights during the merger review was the determining cause of the categories of loss asserted. It also found that UPS failed to establish that the Commission directly induced payment of the break‑fee to TNT, a term...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED-this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 27 January 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline. Case facts Outline A national reference from Latvia sought clarification on multiple issues concerning how to interpret an ‘undertaking in difficulty’ in the context of the State aid regime. Latest developments On 27 January 2022, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment and held: the notion of subscribed capital in Article 2(18)(a) GBER should be read, for the purposes of defining ‘an undertaking in difficulty’, as encompassing all contributions that current and future partners or shares of a company have made or have undertaken to make Article 3(3) of Regulation 1301/2013 must be construed as meaning that, to assess whether a tenderer is not ‘an undertaking in difficulty’ under Article 2(18) of Regulation 651/2014, the competent managing...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED - this archived hub captures the position at the judgment date of 17 February 2021; it is no longer maintained. See the timeline, commentary and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Proceedings for annulment were brought before the General Court against the European Commission’s decision of 31 March 2020, which found that a French scheme allowing airlines to defer certain aeronautical taxes did not constitute unlawful State aid ( SA.56765). Latest developments On 17 February 2020, the General Court delivered its judgment dismissing the appeal in full. It concluded, among other matters, that restricting aid to airlines established in France was suitable and proportionate, and that the scheme’s conditions did not exceed what was needed to attain its aims, in line with Article 107(3)(b) or Article...
1. What is the applicable legislation? At national level From 1 July 2023, Belgium’s foreign direct investment ( FDI) screening system entered into force, created by the Cooperation Agreement 2022 concluded between the Federal State and the Belgian Regions and Communities. Non- European investors are required to notify an inter-federal screening committee of plans to invest in a Belgian company active in highly sensitive sectors, or where the transaction could influence national security, public order, or the strategic interests of the Federal State, Regions and Communities. At regional level On 7 December 2018, the Flemish Parliament adopted the Administrative Decree ( Bestuursdecreet) ( Decree 2018), which provides for the screening of foreign investment concerning Flanders’ strategic (semi-) public assets. Although effective since 1 January 2019, it has not yet been applied. Articles III.59 and III.60 introduce an emergency brake intended to safeguard the Flemish Region’s...
1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Mozambican merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Mozambique? Operational since 2021, the Competition Regulatory Authority of Mozambique ( CRA) has taken a proactive stance on merger control, authorising over fifty deals, some via Phase 2 commitments. It has also begun deploying its sanctioning powers against gun‑jumping and non‑co‑operation. In 2022, CFAO Motors Moçambique, Lda was fined MZN 41.1m for completing the purchase of Auto Avenida and specific assets of Toyota Moçambique and Toyota Maputo without submitting the mandatory notification and awaiting clearance. The Authority also levied a MZN 20m penalty on cement producer Dugongo for not supplying requested information. Looking to 2025, the CRA is expected to entrench its merger control practice and to scrutinise closely any breaches of filing and...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED - this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 19 November 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Case C-306/20 Visma Enterprise - a Latvian reference asking whether, among other matters, a scheme between a producer and multiple distributors - under which the distributor who first records a potential deal with the producer has priority to pursue the sale with the relevant end user for six months from that registration, unless the user objects - should be treated as an agreement within Article 101(1) TFEU. Latest developments On 19 November 2021, the Court of Justice handed down its ruling, indicating that the referring court must examine an agreement’s terms, purpose and context to decide if there is a clear by object breach of Article 101 TFEU. If the company’s...
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
