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 General Court in Case T-583/20 ARCHIVED—this case hub records the position as at the decision of 12 April 2019 and is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline of the European Commission’s merger probe into Nidec’s proposed acquisition of Embraco, Whirlpool’s compressor business ( Case M.8947). The deal features horizontal overlaps in the markets for refrigeration compressors. Latest developments On 12 April 2019, the Commission conditionally approved the transaction, subject to commitments. The commitments comprised a remedies package offered by Nidec including: divestment of its refrigeration compressor business covering household and light commercial applications; and a commitment to provide significant funding to the purchaser of the divested business for future investments in the facilities. Parties Nidec Corporation is a Japan-based company engaged in the engineering, manufacture, and distribution of a wide range of electric motors and motor...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment date of 18 October 2018; it is no longer being maintained. NOTE— Appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 823/18 Commission v GEA Group See further: timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court against the amended European Commission decision that found an infringement and levied fines on GEA for its role in the heat stabilisers cartel ( AT.38589). Outcome On 18 October 2018, the General Court delivered its judgment, by which it annulled the amended Commission decision in full. Parties Applicant: GEA Group AG ( GEA), a German provider of process technology to the food sector and a broad spectrum of other industries. Defendant: European Commission Background By decision of 11 November 2009 (the 2009 Commission Decision), the Commission imposed fines on, amongst others, Aachener Chemische Werke...
Over the course of the past month, annual adjustments have been made to merger control thresholds in Canada, Italy and the Philippines, while Montenegro has revamped its regime, introducing swifter timetables and more adaptable filing provisions. Canada—thresholds remain the same in 2026 On 2 March 2026, the Canadian Competition Bureau ( CCB) confirmed, after its yearly review, that Canadian merger notification thresholds will stay exactly as they are for 2026. The thresholds remain (in brief): size of transaction test: the target must be, or control, an operating business in Canada with more than CDN$93m (approximately €58.9m/ US$66.6m) in Canadian assets (book value) or gross revenue produced by those assets from sales in, from or into Canada (ie domestic plus export sales), and size of parties test: all parties and their affiliates (in aggregate) must together hold over CDN$400m...
CASE HUB See further, timeline Case facts Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU inquiry into Meta’s barring of third-party AI assistants from reaching and engaging with users on Whats App ( AT.41034). Latest developments On 15 April 2026, the Commission issued a supplementary statement of objections under its interim measures procedure, expressing a preliminary view that the revised policy (see below) produces effects comparable to the original exclusion and widening the investigation’s geographic scope to the entire EEA, including Italy. Parties Meta Platforms Inc ( Meta): a US-based technology company whose principal products include social networks ( Facebook and Instagram), consumer communications apps ( Whats App and Messenger), online advertising services, and virtual and augmented reality offerings. Meta also supplies a general-purpose AI assistant, Meta AI. Background On 15 October 2025, Meta announced an update......
This month, the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission ( ACCC) completed the waiver notification form and announced that the revised asset thresholds and control thresholds will take effect on 1 April 2026 (instead of 1 January 2026); the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa ( COMESA) Council of Ministers endorsed the new COMESA Competition and Consumer Protection Regulation (2025) and Competition and Consumer Protection Rules (2025) (which introduce changes to merger control); the New Zealand Government introduced a bill to reform its competition law (including merger control); major amendments were proposed in Norway to revise the Competition Act (also covering merger control); the Swiss Parliament approved significant reforms to the Competition Act, including a comprehensive overhaul of merger control; and the Taiwan Fair Trade Commission ( FTC) proposed changes to merger filing and monopoly...
This month, Argentina has created a new National Competition Authority that will make the country a pre-closing jurisdiction by November 2026, while the Bulgarian Government has also unveiled new measures on additional below-threshold merger oversight and fresh, further extended ‘call-in’ powers. Argentina— Government establishes new National Competition Authority and will become a pre-closing jurisdiction by November 2026 On 14 November 2025, Argentina officially set up the Autoridad Nacional de Competencia ( ANC) via Decree 810/2025, naming its first members. This launch constitutes a long-awaited institutional overhaul under the Argentine Antitrust Law ( Law No. 27,442) ( Antitrust Law) and a key step in updating the nation’s competition framework. The ANC’s formation will transform merger control in Argentina. Pursuant to section 84 of the Antitrust Law, the new pre-closing filing regime will commence one full calendar year after the ANC is constituted (on 17 November 2026),...
CASE HUB See further, timeline. Case facts Summary of the European Commission’s merger review into MMG Limited’s proposed purchase of Anglo American’s Brazilian nickel operations ( M.11944). The deal features vertical connections regarding the supply of ferronickel. Latest developments On 24 November 2025, the Commission suspended the phase II review timetable pursuant to Article 11(3) EUMR. Parties MMG Limited ( MMG): Listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange; the majority of its shares are ultimately owned by China Minmetals Corporation, a State owned enterprise under the control of the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the Chine State Council. A multinational metals and mining group engaged in the exploration, development and production of base metals, principally copper and zinc. ......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the final decision dated 14 October 2025; it is no longer being updated. See further: timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigations into resale price maintenance involving Gucci, Chloé and Loewe ( AT.40840, AT.40880 and AT.40881) Latest development On 14 October 2025, the Commission adopted three infringement decisions, imposing fines totalling €157.4m on Gucci, Chloé and Loewe. The penalties on the three undertakings were: Gucci — €119.67m (including a 50% reduction for co-operation) Chloé — €19.69m (including a 15% reduction for co-operation) Loewe — €18.01m (including a 50% reduction for co-operation) Parties Gucci: Gucci is an ......
This month marks the formal start of the transition to a new merger regime in Australia, the Egyptian Competition Authority ( ECA) issuing an FAQs guide clarifying various matters, amendments (including merger control changes) to Mexico’s Federal Economic Competition Law taking effect, and Paraguay’s yearly update of merger control thresholds. Australia—transitional period for new merger regime begins; government confirms notification thresholds and notification fees From 1 July 2025, Australia’s new merger control framework took effect. It is presently available on a voluntary basis, and will be compulsory from 1 January 2026 for any share or asset acquisitions that meet the monetary thresholds. On 30 June 2025, the government settled a notification instrument setting out key aspects of the regime (including the notification thresholds, targeted notification requirements, forms and fees). Notification thresholds The final instrument leaves unchanged the turnover thresholds for mandatory notification, as previously proposed in the...
CASE HUB See more, timeline, commentary and connected cases. Case facts European Commission merger inquiry under Article 14(1) EUMR into inaccurate or misleading information supplied by KKR during the Commission’s 2024 review of KKR’s acquisition of Net Co. Latest developments On 24 July 2025, the Commission opened its investigation. Parties KKR & Co. Inc ( KKR): Headquartered in the US, KKR is a global investment firm providing alternative asset management alongside capital markets and insurance services. Net Co: Based in Italy, Net Co is a newly established company that comprises Fiber Cop—presently jointly controlled by KKR and TIM—as well as TIM’s primary and backbone fixed-line network......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 13 February 2026; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission merger review of Universal Music Group N. V.’s proposed takeover of Downtown Music Holdings LLC ( M.11956). The deal entails horizontal overlaps regarding the wholesale market for recorded music distribution and the supply of artist and label services within the EEA. Latest developments On 13 February 2026, the Commission approved the merger subject to commitments. It determined there would be no significant impediment to effective competition in recorded music, artist and label services ( A& L), or music publishing. Nonetheless, it raised a wholesale distribution concern linked to Universal Music Group’s potential access to competitively sensitive data processed by Curve (covering rival artists), enabling insights into competitors’ performance by region and...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the decision of 8 December 2025; it is no longer being updated. See the timeline for further details. Case facts Outline European Commission merger review of Mars, Incorporated’s proposed acquisition of Kellanova ( M.11753). The deal features horizontal overlaps in the supply of food products. Latest developments On 8 December 2025, the Commission granted unconditional clearance. While Mars, Incorporated and Kellanova possess market power and could, in theory, link categories in negotiations, the evidence did not indicate that the merger would bolster Mars, Incorporated’s bargaining power vis-à-vis retailers. Shoppers were unlikely to change supermarkets due to the parties’ products being unavailable, and no ‘basket effect’ was proven. Parties Mars, Incorporated ( Mars): Headquartered in the US. A worldwide supplier of confectionery, food products, pet food and animal care services. Its portfolio includes chocolate countlines (e.g. Twix, Mars,...
1. What is the applicable legislation? Greece’s national framework creating a screening system for foreign direct investment ( FDI), and giving effect to Regulation ( EU) 2019/452, is contained in Law 5202/2025, enacted on 22 May 2025 (the Greek FDI Law). 2. Which government or other body (or bodies) reviews foreign investments? The bodies responsible for reviewing foreign investments in Greece are as follows: the Interministerial Committee for Control of Foreign Direct Investments ( DEEAXE); and the Minister of Foreign Affairs Procedural matters in the screening process are managed by Directorate B1, which serves as DEEAXE’s secretariat and the primary contact point for foreign investors. 3. What is the scope of the foreign investment regime? Does it only apply to specific sectors or types of investors (eg foreign or non- EU/non- WTO)? Are there specific rules for certain types of investors (eg...
This month has not brought any material global merger control developments. Nonetheless, a few updates are worth flagging in Australia, Brazil, the EU, India, Thailand and the UK. Gun-jumping and other merger control breaches—fines issued around the world in recent weeks In recent weeks, competition authorities worldwide have announced penalties for gun-jumping/failure to notify and other breaches of merger control rules, namely: Israel: Bank Hapoalim and Israel Discount Bank were each fined ILS 40m for not notifying their acquisitions of minority stakes in Neema Shefa Israel Ltd. Bank Hapoalim purchased 20% of Neema Shefa Israel Ltd’s share capital and Israel Discount Bank around 17.5%. This is the first instance of companies being fined for holding a minority interest in a competitor without a permit from the director-general of the Israeli Competition Authority. Spain: Mémora was fined EUR 108,000 for failing to comply with...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the decision dated 17 December 2020 and is no longer updated. For more detail, see the timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission merger review of the proposed purchase by Google LLC of Fitbit Inc. ( M.9660). The deal gives rise to horizontal overlaps in markets for supplying online search and display advertising services and ‘ad tech’ services. Latest developments On 17 December 2020, the Commission cleared the deal subject to commitments. To remedy the Commission’s concerns, the package comprises behavioural and access measures that set limits on Google’s use of data gathered for advertising, protect interoperability between competing wearables and Android, and allow users, if they wish, to go on sharing health and fitness data. The commitments will apply for ten years, and the Commission may extend the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the abandonment of the transaction on 13 June 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline UK merger review of Clariant’s intended purchase of the Kilfrost Group’s European aircraft de-icing fluid and rail de-icing fluid business. The deal presented a horizontal overlap in the supply of aircraft de-/anti-icing fluids. Latest developments On 13 June 2016, the CMA stated the investigation was cancelled after the parties chose to abandon the deal. On 10 June 2016, the parties had announced their decision to withdraw following the CMA’s provisional findings and the expectation that the transaction would have been prohibited. Parties Clariant AG: a Swiss-based speciality chemicals company, headquartered near Basle, operating in 150 countries worldwide. Kilfrost plc: a UK-based firm in Newcastle specialising in heating and cooling products. The target business is...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 17 February 2011; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, related/relevant cases and commentary Case facts Outline A request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU was referred by the Stockholm District Court to the Court of Justice, addressing how Article 102 TFEU applies in a margin squeeze scenario. The Court of Justice handed down its judgment on 17/02/2011. The Telia Sonera case forms part of a series of notable and high‑profile European matters concerning broadband provision by former national incumbents in newly liberalised telecommunications markets, and has helped confirm, among other points, that a ‘margin squeeze’ constitutes a stand‑alone abuse, capable of existing without additional exclusionary measures. Parties Telia Sonera Sverige AB ( Telia Sonera) Stockholms tingsrätt ( Stockholm District Court) Swedish...
CASE HUB (date of judgment—23/04/2015) See further: timeline commentary related/relevant cases ARCHIVED — this preserved case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 23 April 2015; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline An appeal was lodged by LG Display and LG Display Taiwan challenging the General Court’s ruling which, on the merits, upheld the Commission’s decision of 8 December 2010 finding an infringement and levying a €215m fine on LG Display and LG Display Taiwan (jointly and severally, but cut to €210m by the General Court) for their alleged participation in a cartel concerning the supply of liquid crystal display ( LCD) panels (the ‘ LCD cartel’). On 23 April 2015, the Court of Justice rejected the appeal in full, thereby endorsing the infringement finding and the penalty, as trimmed by the General Court, to €210m. The case...
CASE HUB (date of judgment—14/03/2017) See further: timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVED — this case hub, now archived, captures the position as at the decision dated 13 March 2017 and is no longer being maintained. Outline An appeal was lodged against the General Court’s judgment dismissing an action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 24 May 2012. That decision refused Evonik Degussa Gmb H’s request for confidential treatment of information supplied by Degussa in the context of leniency, intended for inclusion in the published version of the ' Hydrogen peroxide and perborate cartel' decision......
CASE HUB Archived This archived case hub records the position as at the date the transaction was abandoned on 25 April 2020; it is no longer updated. See further, the timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline: European Commission merger review into the proposed purchase by Boeing Company of Embrace SA’s commercial aviation business, together with related operational and engineering capabilities, and the parties’ intended joint control of the joint venture, EB Defence LC ( Case M.9097). The deal presented horizontal overlaps in the markets for manufacturing commercial aircraft. Latest developments On 25 April 2020, Boeing Company announced it had called off the transaction. On 8 May 2020, the notification to the Commission was abandoned and withdrawn. Parties Boeing Company ( Boeing): Boeing is an American aerospace and defence corporation headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Boeing designs, builds, and sells commercial aeroplanes, military aeroplanes, and spacecraft, as well as defence, space, and...
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
