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 HUB NOTE-appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 240/222 ARCHIVED -this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 26 January 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Referral back to the General Court followed the Court of Justice’s ruling in Case C- 413/14 Intel v Commission, an appeal against the General Court’s earlier judgment that had upheld the Commission’s decision of 13 May 2009 ( Case AT.37990) finding an infringement and imposing a fine on Intel for alleged abuse of dominance via conditional rebates and loyalty payments. Outcome On 26 January 2022, the General Court delivered its judgment, annulling the Commission’s decision in part. It held, amongst other matters, that the Commission’s assessment was incomplete and failed to establish, to the required legal standard, that the rebates in...
CASE HUB Archived This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 3 March 2022; it is no longer being updated. See also the timeline. Case facts Outline UK merger investigation into the anticipated purchase of the passive infrastructure assets of CK Hutchison Networks Europe Investments S.À R. L in the UK by Cellnex UK Limited. The parties overlap in supplying access to developed macro sites and associated services to wireless communications providers in the UK. Latest developments On 3 March 2022, the CMA published its final report, approving the deal subject to conditions following an in-depth phase 2 investigation. Parties Cellnex UK Limited ( Cellnex): Cellnex owns and operates UK sites with passive infrastructure-elevated structures for attaching telecommunications equipment-used by wireless communications providers. Its customers are chiefly mobile network operators ( MNOs). Cellnex’s passive infrastructure is also utilised by other...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED -this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 10 November 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline An appeal was brought against the General Court’s ruling in Case T- 732/16, which had allowed an appeal challenging the Commission’s 4 July 2016 decision that aid granted to three Valencia football clubs constituted unlawful State aid ( SA.36387). Latest developments On 9 November 2022, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment, rejecting the appeal in full and confirming that the General Court’s decision should stand. It clarified that, by issuing the 2008 Guarantee Notice, the Commission had undertaken to check whether a suitable market benchmark for a guarantee premium existed and, if none was available, whether there was a market price for a comparable loan without a guarantee, before turning to the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment of 31 January 2023 and is no longer updated. See further: Timeline Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court’s preliminary judgment of 24 February 2021 in Case T‑161/18, which rejected the Commission’s plea of inadmissibility regarding the Commission’s decision of 4 July 2017 approving Italy’s scheme to support the recapitalisation of Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena as compatible with State aid rules ( SA.47677). Latest developments On 31 January 2023, the Court of Justice delivered judgment diverging from Advocate General Rantos and the General Court. It found that the measures cited in the Commission’s decision were neither imposed nor made binding by that decision. Rather, they were solely national steps, notified by Italy under Article 108(3) TFEU on its own...
ARCHIVED - this archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment dated 27 January 2021; it is no longer maintained. See also timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline A third‑party challenge before the General Court seeking to overturn the Commission’s second conditional approval of Liberty Global’s acquisition of Ziggo. Latest development On 27 January 2021, the General Court delivered its judgment and dismissed the appeal in full. Parties Applicant: KPN, a Dutch provider of fixed and mobile telecoms and TV services Defendant: European Commission (the Commission) Background Transaction On 27 January 2014, Liberty Global agreed to acquire the remaining shares and control of Ziggo for €10bn. At that time, Liberty Global already held 28.5% of Ziggo’s shares. Commission’s 2014 investigation The Commission was notified of the concentration on 14 March 2014. The matter was sent to a phase II review on 8 May 2014. During phase I, the Dutch...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED-this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 20 April 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline A reference from Spain sought clarification on the extent to which decisions of competition authorities-finding certain of the applicant’s supply agreements unlawful-bind domestic judges. Latest developments On 20 April 2023, the Court of Justice delivered its ruling confirming that: (i) as regards Article 101 TFEU (given effect by Article 2 of Regulation 1/2003 and interpreted alongside the principle of effectiveness), where a final decision of a national competition authority identifies a breach of competition law, that infringement is to be treated as proven by the claimant in actions for damages or for a declaration of nullity unless disproved by the defendant; this holds only if the nature of the infringement and its material, personal, temporal and...
ARCHIVED - this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 15 July 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline of the CAT’s judgment concerning a standalone damages claim alleging abuse of a dominant position in the UK market for the sale and hire of academic dress for graduation ceremonies, said to result from exclusivity agreements. Latest development On 15 July 2022, the CAT handed down its judgment. The two applications before the CAT related to follow-on damages claims concerning the infringement identified in the Commission’s 2016 decision. The application brought by the claimants was filed on 26 June 2020. Parties Claimants Churchill Gowns Limited Student Gowns Limited (together, Churchill) Defendants Ede Ravenscroft Limited ( ERL) Radcliffe & Taylor Limited ( R& T) WM. Northam & Company Limited ( Northam) Irish Legal and Academic Limited ( ILA) (together, the E&...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED -this archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment of 17 February 2021 and is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline An action for annulment before the General Court against the European Commission’s decision of 11 April 2020 approving a Swedish loan guarantee scheme to aid airlines under the Temporary Framework for State aid to support the economy during the COVID-19 outbreak ( SA.56812). Latest developments On 17 February 2020, the General Court delivered its judgment, rejecting the appeal in its entirety. It concluded, among other findings, that confining aid to airlines established in Sweden was suitable and proportionate, and that the scheme’s conditions did not exceed what was necessary to achieve its aims. The objectives were consistent with either Article 107(3)(b) or Article...
1. What is the applicable legislation? Key laws regulating inbound investment in Portugal comprise: Regulation ( EU) 2019/452 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019, setting a framework for screening foreign direct investment into the Union ( EU FDI Regulation 2019), as updated by Commission Delegated Regulation ( EU) 2021/2126 of 29 September 2021 Regulation ( EU) 2022/2560 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 on foreign subsidies that distort the internal market Legal Framework for National Strategic Assets, adopted by Decree- Law No. 138/2014 of 15 September 2014 ( Decree- Law 138/2014) Portuguese Companies Code, adopted by Decree- Law No. 262/86 of 2 September 1986, as amended In addition, several bilateral investment treaties ( BITs) can apply depending on the investor’s jurisdiction; Portugal has concluded these to mutually protect...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 4 May 2022 and is no longer updated. For more detail, see the timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline A plea seeking annulment of the Commission decision ( SA.34572) that found multiple guarantees granted to Larko to be unlawful State aid; the case was returned to the General Court following the Court of Justice’s ruling in Case C‑244/18. Latest developments On 4 May 2022, the General Court delivered its judgment, dismissing the appeal. Parties Appellant: Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE ( Larko) Respondent: European Commission (the Commission) Background Larko is a major enterprise focused on extracting and processing laterite ore, mining lignite, and producing ferronickel and related by-products. It was created in 1989 as a new company following the winding-up of Hellenic Mining and Metallurgical SA. At the material time, Larko had three...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment of 20 January 2021 and is no longer maintained. See the timeline and related cases for further details. Case facts Outline An appeal was lodged with the Court of Justice against the General Court’s ruling in Case T-201/17, which required the Commission to compensate Printeos SA after it refused to pay interest on a repaid cartel fine. Latest development On 20 January 2021, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment, rejecting the appeal in its entirety. It held, among other points, that the Commission’s claim that its non-payment of default interest to Printeos did not amount to a sufficiently serious breach of Article 266 TFEU and caused no damage must be dismissed. The Court also upheld Printeos’s cross-appeal, concluding that the General Court erred by providing that interest on the damages would accrue only from the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment of 17 November 2022; it is no longer being maintained. See further: timeline. Case facts Outline Appeals were brought against the General Court’s judgments in Cases T-607/17 and T-8/18, which had rejected actions to annul the Commission decision of 26 July 2016. That decision declared a compensation scheme benefiting several airlines unlawful and ordered repayment of all aid granted ( SA.33983). Latest developments On 17 November 2022, the Court of Justice upheld the Applicants’ appeals, set aside the General Court’s 2020 judgment, and annulled the Commission’s 2016 decision in so far as it concerned the Applicants. Parties Applicants: Volotea SA ( Volotea): A Spanish-based company providing scheduled air transport. Volotea runs scheduled passenger and freight services linking small and medium-sized cities across Europe. easy Jet Airline Company Ltd (easy Jet): A UK-based low-cost...
The table below lists competition appeal cases (and other competition actions) currently live before the General Court relating to Article 101 TFEU, Article 102 TFEU and the EU Merger Regulation (ie actions for annulment of Commission decisions and other actions lodged). NOTE—once final judgments are delivered, appeals are shifted from this document to the closed-appeals trackers within seven days of the decision. For completed General Court appeals see: General Court Article 101 TFEU appeals—closed cases tracker General Court Article 102 TFEU appeals—closed cases tracker General Court EUMR appeals—closed cases tracker For appeals before the Court of Justice, see Court of Justice appeals—ongoing cases tracker. Note—this tracker does not cover State aid. For State aid appeals, see General Court State aid appeals—ongoing cases tracker and Court of Justice State aid appeal—ongoing cases tracker......
The following records completed General Court appeals concerning State aid ( Articles 107–109 TFEU) since 1 June 2015. For live General Court appeals, see General Court State aid appeals—ongoing cases tracker. For details of live appeals before the Court of Justice involving State aid, see Court of Justice State aid appeals—ongoing cases tracker. 2026 Case Issues Developments Case T‑261/25 LM v Commission Partial challenge to the Commission decision in SA.44944— Tax treatment of public casinos in Germany and SA.53552— Alleged guarantee for public casinos in Germany ( Wirtschaftlichkeitsgarantie). See Application. Order—29/01/2026; action dismissed as inadmissible Lodged—17/04/2025 Appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C‑306/26 P Case T‑201/25 Poland v Commission Appeal against the Commission decision in SA.107930— Poland ‘ Gdańsk Transport Company S. A.’—new aid in the context of the concession contract for the A1 motorway. See...
The tables below lists competition appeal cases currently live (lodged or heard post 01/01/2012) before the Court of Justice relating to Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU and the EU Merger Regulation. For national court references, consult the Court of Justice national references—ongoing cases tracker. For live matters before the General Court, refer to the General Court appeals—ongoing cases tracker. Completed appeals are transferred from this document to the appropriate closed-appeal trackers within seven days of the final court decision. For concluded Court of Justice appeals, see: Court of Justice Article 101 TFEU appeals—closed cases tracker Court of Justice Article 102 TFEU appeals—closed cases tracker Court of Justice EUMR appeals—closed cases tracker Note—this tracker does not cover State aid. For State aid appeals, see: General Court State aid appeals—ongoing cases tracker Court of Justice State aid...
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...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the date the investigation was cancelled on 25 March 2021, following the abandonment of the deal; it is no longer being updated. See also, timeline. Case facts Outline UK merger probe into the expected purchase by Crowdcube Limited of Seedrs Limited. The parties overlap in providing crowdfunding platforms to small and medium-sized enterprises ( SMEs). Latest developments On 25 March 2021, the CMA formally terminated its phase 2 inquiry after the parties decided to drop the merger. Parties Crowdcube Limited ( Crowdcbue): Crowdcube supplies investment services, offering financial support, analysis and guidance via investors, corporates and consultants to start-up and scaling businesses. Seedrs Limited ( Seedrs). Seedrs acts as an investment company, providing seed finance to start-ups, together with advisory and support services from its cloud network. Seedrs serves customers in the...
Section 120 of the Enterprise Act 2002 created a route and procedures for merging businesses and other interested parties to contest or challenge a merger determination by the Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA) or the Secretary of State before the Competition Appeal Tribunal ( CAT). Established under section 12 of the Enterprise Act 2002, the CAT is an independent, specialist competition tribunal whose functions include hearing appeals from those who can demonstrate the requisite standing in relation to decisions taken by the CMA or, as appropriate, the Secretary of State. In merger matters, the CAT’s remit is strictly confined to examining the lawfulness of the decision-making process, as opposed to undertaking an appeal on the merits. When reviewing merger outcomes, the CAT applies the same principles that a court would ordinarily invoke on an application for judicial review. An...
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...
Article 102 TFEU Across the EU, behaviour by single-firm or otherwise dominant businesses is controlled under Article 102 TFEU and applies throughout the Union. That clause bars undertakings that, alone or together, enjoy a dominant position in the internal market, or a material portion of it, from exploiting that power—absent objective justification—where such conduct may influence trade between Member States. Equivalent rules appear in Member States’ national competition regimes and closely mirror Article 102’s approach. Article 102 imposes a special responsibility on dominant undertakings, intended to ensure that powerful companies do not skew markets, deal unfairly with customers, or blunt competitive pressure by shutting out rivals, notably by: setting, directly or indirectly, unfair purchase or selling prices, or imposing other unjust trading terms, restricting output, markets, or technological progress to the detriment of consumers, applying unequal terms to...
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
