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 (date of judgment—13/12/2017) See further: timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVED —this preserved case hub records the position as at 13 December 2017 and is no longer maintained. Outline Telefónica appealed the General Court’s ruling which, upholding (for the most part) the Commission’s decision of 23 January 2013 ( AT.39839), found an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and imposed financial penalties on Telefónica in respect of a non‑compete arrangement affecting the Iberian telecommunications market. The dispute, amongst other matters, centred on whether the agreement under scrutiny should be treated as a ‘by object’ restriction, and the implications that characterisation has for the nature and extent of the analysis the Commission must undertake—especially in a setting where the parties to the non‑compete are not ‘actual’ competitors, and where evidence of ‘potential’ competition between them has not been established, or is expressly contested by the...
NOTE—to verify whether notification thresholds in Colombia and globally are met, see further: Where to Notify for guidance. 1. There have been recent developments regarding the Colombian merger control regime. What are the main points of interest and are any further updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other hot merger control issues in Colombia? The latest change affecting the Colombian merger control framework was Law 2010 of December 2019. Through this statute, Congress authorised the Superintendence of Industry and Commerce ( Superintendencia de Industria y Comercio, SIC), the national competition authority, to levy a filing fee for merger review. Acting on this mandate, the SIC calibrated the fee according to the type of submission and created distinct charges for Phase 1 and Phase 2 clearance applications. In 2021, the SIC refreshed its procedural guidance for merger review via Resolution 2751 of 2021. That...
Tying and bundling Within EU competition law, tying and bundling are chiefly examined as forms of abusive dominance. Article 102(d) TFEU expressly refers to tying, describing it as requiring counterparties to accept supplementary obligations that, by their nature or according to commercial usage, are unconnected with the subject of the contract. Numerous EU investigations have flagged tying and bundling by firms holding market power (i.e., dominance). These include prominent matters in traditional goods and services, and in newer technology markets, exemplified by cases concerning Microsoft’s integration of its media player and browser with its operating system. In recent years, the free provision of digitised, internet-based products and services has increasingly been cast as anti-competitive tying or bundling, particularly in complaints aimed at Google and Meta. This trend has prompted questions over whether the established approach of competition authorities to tying and bundling is...
CASE HUB ( Note – appealed in Eurotunnel and Société Coopérative de Production Sea France v Competition Commission, with the case remitted to the CC in Eurotunnel/ Sea France (remittal investigation)). ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position as at the decision of 6 June 2013 and is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline: UK merger review concerning Eurotunnel’s acquisition of Sea France’s ferries and other assets. Latest developments The CC issued its final report on 6 June 2013, barring Eurotunnel from operating ferry services from Dover for ten years. The restriction was to begin after six months, giving Eurotunnel a window to dispose of the former Sea France ferries if it chooses. Should the vessels be sold, Eurotunnel will be unable to re-acquire them for ten years. Eurotunnel is also not allowed to start sailings from Dover using other ferries for two...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the date of the judgment of 24 September 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: the timeline and the relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Proceedings brought seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 21 October 2015, which determined that selective tax advantages afforded to Starbucks by the Netherlands constituted unlawful State aid ( Case SA.38.374). Latest developments On 24 September 2019, the General Court delivered its judgment, allowing the appeals and thus setting aside the Commission’s 2015 decision. The General Court found, among other matters, that the Commission had not demonstrated that the methodology applied by the Netherlands in fact benefited Starbucks or reduced its tax liability in the Netherlands; and, as regards its reproach that the Dutch authorities had not examined a royalty paid between Starbucks subsidiaries, the Commission had failed to perform its own...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 24 September 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court against the European Commission’s re-adopted decision concerning Printeos and Tompla (after the General Court annulled its original decision), confirming infringements and fines for involvement in a cartel in the paper envelopes market ( AT.39780). Latest developments On 24 September 2019, the General Court delivered its judgment, rejecting the attempt to annul the re-imposed fine. However, it ordered the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings due to the careless manner in which its decision had been drafted. Parties Applicants: Printeos, SA and Printeos Cartera Industrial, SL (collectively, Printeos) Tompla Scandinavia AB, Tompla France and Tompla...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 850/19 P ARCHIVED ARCHIVED — this case hub captures the position as at the judgment dated 20 September 2019; it is no longer maintained. See the timeline for further information. Case facts Outline Case T‑217/17, FVE Holýšov I and Others v Commission — proceedings seeking annulment of the European Commission’s decision approving an aid scheme for installations generating renewable energy constructed in the Czech Republic between 2006 and 2012 ( Case SA.40171). Latest developments On 20 September 2019, the General Court delivered its judgment, by which it dismissed the action. Parties Applicants: FVE Holýšov I s. r. o......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the date of the judgment, 20 September 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Applications for annulment before the General Court challenging the Commission’s decision of 27 July 2017 concerning corporate tax exemptions for ports in Belgium and France ( Case SA.38393). Latest developments On 20 September 2019, the General Court delivered its judgments, dismissing the appeals in full. In particular, the Court concluded, amongst other things, that the Commission made no assessment errors in finding that the ports were, at least in part, engaged in economic activities and therefore constituted undertakings within the meaning of the EU State aid rules, and in categorising the aid measure as selective......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the decision dated 12 November 2019 and is no longer updated. See further: timeline, related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission merger review of the planned purchase by Telia Company AB of Bonnier Broadcasting Holding AB ( Case M.9076). The deal gives rise to vertical overlaps across television and telecoms markets in Finland and Sweden. Latest developments On 12 November 2019, the Commission approved the merger subject to commitments. Under these commitments: Access will be provided to the combined group’s free-to-air and basic pay TV channels, as well as its premium pay TV sports channels Access will be provided to the combined group’s streaming offerings Access will be provided to the combined group’s TV advertising inventory Confidential information relating to competing TV broadcasters, TV distributors and telecom operators will be...
ARCHIVED — this archived case hub records the position as at the date commitments were accepted on 11 July 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into a network sharing arrangement in the Czech mobile telecommunications sector between O2, CETIN and T‑ Mobile ( Case AT.40305). Latest development On 11 July 2022, the Commission accepted commitments from T‑ Mobile CZ, CETIN and O2 CZ (together with their parent companies, Deutsche Telekom and PPF), thereby closing its investigation. The Commission agreed to revised commitments put forward by the parties to modernise mobile network equipment, enabling greater flexibility and independence for the two sharing operators in specified radio frequencies. The parties also undertook to review and adjust the financial terms for unilateral network deployments, and to strengthen contractual provisions so that information exchange is limited to what is...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 9 July 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline commentary andrelated cases. Case facts Outline The European Commission pursued an Article 101 investigation into vertical limitations that prevented traders from selling licensed goods into other EEA markets. These measures covered products featuring Hello Kitty or other Sanrio-owned characters. Latest development On 9 July 2019, the Commission delivered an infringement decision against Sanrio, levying a €6,220,000 fine (following an ‘informal settlement’) for applying vertical constraints on cross-border sales of licensed merchandise depicting Hello Kitty or other characters, in breach of Article 101 TFEU. Parties Sanrio Company, Ltd ( Sanrio) is a Japanese company that creates, licences, produces and sells products featuring Hello Kitty, an anthropomorphic cat girl also known by her full name Kitty White, along with other well-known...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Case T- 876/19 in relation to the imposition of interim measures ARCHIVED – this case hub captures the position at the date the commitments were accepted on 7 October 2020; it is no longer maintained. For more, see the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Appeal before the General Court ( Case T‑876/19). Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU probe into Broadcom Inc concerning alleged exclusionary conduct in supply of systems-on-a-chip for TV set‑top boxes and modems ( Case AT.39711). Latest development On 7 October 2020, the Commission stated it had accepted commitments from Broadcom, and therefore closed the investigation......
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Case T-84/22 ARCHIVED — this archive reflects the position as at the 2 December 2021 decision and is no longer maintained. For more, see the timeline, commentary, and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into three cartels in the Spot Foreign Exchange market for 11 markets ( AT.40135). The cartels featured the exchange of confidential information and, at times, the coordination of trading strategies. Latest development On 2 December 2021, the Commission adopted a second infringement decision after Barclays, RBS and HSBC settled with the Commission and acknowledged participation in a third cartel (the Commission’s 2021 decision). Fines totalling €261m were issued. Under the ordinary procedure, the Commission also imposed fines of €83m on Credit Suisse. For the ‘ Sterling Lads’ cartel, the penalties were: UBS — €0 (immunity...
ARCHIVED—this case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 16 April 2019; it is no longer maintained or updated. NOTE— In July 2019, the Supreme Court granted Mastercard permission to appeal. See the timeline, commentary and related cases for further details and context. Case facts Outline An appeal against the CAT’s judgment of 21 July 2017, which refused an application for a collective proceedings order in relation to potential follow‑on actions brought against Mastercard. Latest development On 16 April 2019, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment, allowing the appeal and sending the CPO application back to the CAT for a re‑hearing. In particular, the Court of Appeal held that the CAT had applied the incorrect test when considering the commonality of the claims—at the certification stage the proposed representative need only show that he has a real prospect of success (here, regarding...
ARCHIVED—this case hub captures the position as at the decision of 8 July 2021 and is no longer maintained. NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Case T- 87/22. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into limiting competition in the development of technology to clean diesel passenger-car emissions (ie nitrogen oxide abatement) ( Case AT.40178). Latest development On 8 July 2021, the Commission issued an infringement decision after the three companies settled with it and accepted their role in the cartel. Overall fines of €875m were imposed. Fines per company were: Volkswagen—€502.362 (with a 45% leniency reduction and a 10% settlement reduction) BMW—€372.827m (including a 10% settlement reduction) Daimler—no fine (as it received immunity) Parties Bayerische Motorenwerke AG ( BMW): a German car manufacturer based in Munich Daimler AG ( Daimler): a German car...
The following records and condenses finalised inquiries undertaken by the European Ombudsman linked to DG Competition, as well as competition law matters since 2014. 2025 Case Type of complaint Issues Relevant Commission investigation or decision Developments Case 1880/2025/ MAS Access to documents This matter related to a bid for public access to a report that set out an assessment of the ‘ Do No Significant Harm’ principle for a project under a State aid inquiry Case SA.101151 30/09/2025—the Ombudsman identified no maladministration and closed the file Decision Case 275/2024/ NH Access to documents This case involved a request for public access to papers concerning a State aid investigation into railway services in Portugal Unknown 20/01/2025—the Ombudsman decided that no further enquiries were warranted and closed the case Decision Case 275/2024/ NH Access to documents This case concerned a plea for public access to...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 17 December 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission probe under Article 101 TFEU into vertical limits on online advertising and cross-border sales attributed to Guess ( Case AT.40428). Latest developments On 17 December 2018, the Commission adopted an infringement decision against Asus, levying €39.821m (following an ‘informal settlement’) for restraining retailers’ online advertising and blocking cross-border sales to consumers in other Member States (‘geo-blocking’), in breach of Article 101 TFEU. Parties Guess is a United States-based clothing brand and retailer that designs, distributes and licences apparel and accessories under several trade marks, including “ GUESS?” and “ MARCIANO”. In the EEA, Guess operates a selective distribution...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Cases T‑837/19, T‑64/20, T‑58/20 and T‑69/20 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 18 July 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission review of a merger concerning Vodafone’s intended acquisition of Liberty Global’s businesses in Germany, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Romania ( Case M.8864). The deal gives rise to concerns in markets for telecommunications services, especially in the Czech Republic and Germany. Latest developments On 18 July 2019, the Commission granted conditional approval, subject to commitments. It accepted from Vodafone a package of remedies designed to address its competition concerns. Parties Vodafone is a UK-based telecommunications operator. It is primarily engaged in running mobile telecommunication networks and in supplying mobile telecommunication services, including mobile voice, messaging and data services. Certain...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 7 December 2018; it is no longer maintained or updated. See further, timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU inquiry into the electricity interconnector linking Western Denmark and Germany, operated by Tenne T (case number AT.40461). Latest development On 7 December 2018, the Commission accepted commitments from Tenne T under Article 9. These commitments, which will apply for nine years, provide that: Tenne T will offer to the market the maximum capacity consistent with the safe operation of the interconnector between Western Denmark and Germany and, in any case, will ensure a minimum hourly capacity of 1 300 megawatts on the interconnector (approximately 75% of its technical capacity); this minimum guaranteed hourly capacity will be achieved following an...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 6 December 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court against the European Commission’s decision finding an infringement and imposing penalties on, amongst others, Coveris Rigid France ( Coveris), for taking part in a cartel concerning retail food packaging trays in France. Outcome On 6 December 2018, the General Court ruled and rejected Coveris’ argument that liability for a €4.8m penalty should pass to the purchaser of assets sold by its parent group from the business implicated in the cartel; the Court held Coveris remained responsible. Parties Applicant: Coveris Rigid France Defendant: European Commission Coveris manufactures flexible packaging and supplies varied packaging...
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
