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
A discussion with Lerisha Naidu, Partner, Angelo Tzarevski, Partner, and Sphesihle Nxumalo, Director Designate, from the South African office of global law firm Baker Mc Kenzie on core themes around merger control in Rwanda. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Rwandan merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Rwanda? Rwanda’s competition framework is set out in Law No 36/2012 of 21/9/2012 concerning Competition and Consumer Protection (the Competition Law). Notifications are submitted to the Rwanda Inspectorate, Competition and Consumer Protection Authority ( RICA). A proposed amendment to the Competition Law was tabled in 2019, but it has not yet been passed, and any implications for merger assessment remain uncertain. At present, there are no pressing or ‘hot’ merger control matters in Rwanda. Rwanda belongs to the Common Market for...
Note— To check whether notification thresholds in Kosovo and worldwide are met, see: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Also, are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Kosovo? The Republic of Kosovo ( Kosovo) adopted the Law on Protection of Competition, No. 08/ L-056, effective 22 June 2022 ( Competition Act 2022). Filing thresholds were revised; a notification is now required if: the combined worldwide turnover of all undertakings concerned exceeds €20 million in the financial year before the concentration, with at least one undertaking posting local turnover in Kosovo above €1m; or at least two undertakings each have local turnover in Kosovo exceeding €3m In parallel with the Competition Act 2022, new members joined the decision-making body of the Kosovo...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment of 13 November 2020 and is no longer maintained. See the timeline and commentary for more... Case facts Outline JD Sports plc appealed against the Competition and Markets Authority’s decision of 6 May 2020, which prohibited the completed acquisition by JD Sports Fashion plc of Footasylum plc and required the full divestment of Footasylum plc (i.e. to unwind the transaction)... Latest development On 13 November 2020, the CAT delivered its judgment, rejecting claims that the CMA erred in how it assessed whether the deal was likely to lead to an SLC. Nonetheless, the CAT partially upheld JD Sport Fashions plc’s appeal by quashing the CMA’s phase 2 decision to the extent it relied on the CMA’s analysis of the anticipated effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on: the relevant markets; the merging parties and/or the merged entity; and the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment date of 13 December 2013; it is no longer updated. For further information, see the timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal by Holding Slovenske elektrarne ( HSE) to the General Court, seeking annulment or a reduction in the amount of the penalty arising from the Commission’s decision of 22 July 2009, which found an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and levied a €9.1m fine on HSE (within combined fines of €61.1m on HSE and eight other companies) for alleged participation in a calcium carbide and magnesium cartel between 2004 and 2007. Parties Applicant: Holding Slovenske elektrarne d.o.o. ( HSE) Defendant: European Commission Market(s) The EEA market for the supply of calcium carbide and magnesium to the steel and gas industries......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub records the position as at the decision of 5 March 2019; it is no longer maintained. See the timeline and commentary Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU inquiry into two cartels concerning the supply of automotive occupant safety systems (car seatbelts, airbags and steering wheels) to European carmakers (the Volkswagen Group and the BMW Group) in the EEA ( AT.40481). The schemes centred on aligning market conduct and exchanging information. Latest development On 5 March 2019, the Commission adopted its infringement decision after the three automotive equipment suppliers reached settlement with the Commission and admitted participation in the two cartels. Aggregate fines of €368.277m were levied......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment dated 21 May 2021; it is no longer being updated. For more, see the timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Sabre Corporation appealed the Competition and Markets Authority’s 9 April 2020 decision blocking Sabre’s anticipated acquisition of Farelogix Inc. Latest development On 21 May 2021, the CAT handed down its judgment, rejecting the appeal in full. Among other findings, the CAT held that the CMA: (i) did not err in claiming jurisdiction over the deal by applying the share of supply test under section 23 of the Enterprise Act 2002; and (ii) enjoys wide discretion in deploying that test as it considers appropriate, including by looking at products’ functionality. Parties Sabre Corporation ( Sabre): A US-based travel technology provider headquartered in Southlake, Texas. Competition and Markets Authority (...
Allergan plc v CMA; Advanz Pharma Corp v CMA; Cinven ( Luxco I) S.a.r.l (formerly Cinven ( Luxco I) S. A.) & Others v CMA; Auden Mckenzie ( Pharma) Limited and Another v CMA; Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited and Others v CMA (abuse of dominance) [ Archived] CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 18 September 2023; it is no longer updated. See also, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeals by Allergan plc, Advanz Pharma Corp, Cinven ( Luxco I) S.a.r.l (formerly Cinven ( Luxco I) S. A.), Auden Mckenzie ( Pharma) Limited and Intas Pharmaceuticals challenging the CMA’s 15 July 2021 decision in its Chapter II probe into excessive and unfair pricing of hydrocortisone tablets, which concluded an abuse of dominance and levied fines exceeding £260m in total. Latest development On 18 September 2023, the CAT handed down its...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C-806/19 P and C-883/19 P ARCHIVED —this archived case hub records the state of play as at the judgment dated 24 September 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline: Appeal brought before the General Court challenging the Commission’s decision of 7 December 2016, which found infringements and levied fines on three banks that did not settle, due to their involvement in a cartel in the Euro interest rate derivatives ( EIRD) market ( Case AT.39914). Latest developments On 24 September 2019, the General Court delivered its judgment, largely confirming the Commission’s conclusion that HSBC Holdings plc took part in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU. Nonetheless, the General Court set aside the fine imposed on HSBC Holdings plc because the Commission provided...
This table outlines all concluded probes by Greece’s competition watchdog, the Hellenic Competition Commission ( HCC), into suspected cartels, restrictive agreements and abuses of dominance ( Articles 101/102 TFEU and national equivalents) since 2018. Only investigations that are publicly available are listed... 2026 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/ Article 1 of Law 3959/11 Pet food supply — KOMPA Ltd; HAPPY DOG SA — Restrictive agreements ( RPM) — Press release dated 06/03/2026; fines totalling €482,498 Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/ Article 2 of Law 3959/11 No Article 102/ Article 2 decisions have been issued by the HCC in 2026 2025 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/ Article 1 of Law 3959/11 School accessories and toys — Public Ret — Restrictive agreements ( RPM) — Commitments accepted—19/11/2025 Ready-to-eat cereal — Atlanta — Restrictive agreements (vertical agreement) — Settlement...
The breadth of the European Commission’s ( Commission) authority to pursue antitrust breaches by undertakings based outside the EEA, for conduct taking place beyond its borders, has been hotly debated, especially after the Commission’s cartel decisions in the LCDs and CRTs matters. The question of extraterritorial scope also features in unilateral conduct, as shown by Case C-413/14 Intel v Commission. Although the EU treaties do not spell out the territorial limits of EU competition law, the Court of Justice has over time crafted tests to assess whether, in a given instance, the Commission has the requisite jurisdiction... Extraterritorial jurisdiction Single economic entity: permits the Commission to hold a parent to account where its EEA-based subsidiary engages in unlawful conduct. Implementation: considers the degree to which the anti-competitive behaviour was carried out within the EEA. Qualified effects: requires that the conduct was capable of producing...
NOTE—to check whether notification thresholds in the Czech Republic and worldwide are met, see further: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Czech merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in the Czech Republic? A 2023 bill amending Act No. 143/2001 Coll. on the Protection of Competition (the Act)—which aimed to introduce a so‑called ‘ New Competition Tool’ alongside a call‑in model—has been withdrawn. Even so, the Office for the Protection of Competition (the Office) intends to table a new draft bill in early 2026. Regarding merger control, the Office is expected to put forward a far‑reaching call‑in mechanism, constrained solely by the aggregate Czech revenues of all parties, so acquisitions of companies with no turnover could still face review. The Office also plans to increase the...
NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in CEMAC and throughout the world are met, see further: Where to Notify. Introduction Competition in CEMAC is governed by Regulation N. 06/19- UEAC-639- CM-33 of 7 April 2019, Regulation No. 000350 of 25 September 2020, Regulation 00087 of 16 March 2022, and Regulation No. 000140 of 16 March 2023, which amends Regulation No. 000350 ( Second Amendment Procedural Regulations). Mergers that must be notified require the CEMAC Commission’s prior approval before they can be implemented. The framework covers combinations involving legal entities established within the CEMAC area. Under Article 58 of the Regulation, a concentration occurs when: two or more previously independent companies merge, one or more companies acquire, directly or indirectly, control of the whole or part of one or more other companies by equity participation, contract, or any other means, or a joint venture is created to perform, on a lasting basis, all the...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Case T- 1097/23 See further, timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Summary of a European Commission investigation under Articles 4, 7 and 8 EUMR regarding the acquisition of Lagardère by Vivendi ( M.11184). Latest development On 18 July 2025, the Commission issued its statement of objection, setting out its preliminary view that Vivendi infringed the notification requirement ( Article 4 EUMR) and the ‘standstill obligation’ ( Article 7 EUMR), and that it failed to comply with the conditions and obligations linked to the Commission’s decision of 9 June 2023 clearing the Vivendi/ Lagardère transaction ( Article 8 EUMR). Parties Vivendi S. E ( Vivendi): a French global media and entertainment group operating across various markets through its subsidiaries: television and cinema ( Canal+ Group), book publishing ( Editis), magazines ( Prisma Media), video games ( Gameloft), and...
1. What is the applicable legislation? Uruguay lacks a broad, cross‑cutting regime for screening foreign investment. In this respect, the authorities encourage all investment, without discrimination between local and foreign investors. Nevertheless, operating in certain industries demands prior authorisation or dedicated, sector‑specific licences in order to commence activities. Additionally, some areas impose particular rules aimed at identifying the ultimate owners of the capital invested and, in some instances, require participation through a locally incorporated entity that will be subject to Uruguayan regulation. Sectors commonly needing prior authorisation include the national financial system, activities requiring environmental permitting, mobile telecommunications services and long‑distance telecommunications services. Outside the sphere of the traditional State monopolies, there appears to be no support for reserving so‑called strategic sectors solely to Uruguayan capital. Uruguayan legislation has established a legal framework to promote investments across various fields and...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub records the position as at the decision dated 21 February 2025; it is no longer maintained. See the timeline and related cases Case facts Outline CMA Chapter I CA98 probe into whether five banks broke UK competition law by sharing sensitive information on UK government bonds in private one-to-one online chats. Latest development On 22 February 2025, the CMA issued five distinct infringement decisions after four companies settled with the authority and admitted involvement in anti-competitive behaviour. Another company obtained immunity for alerting the CMA to its part in the unlawful conduct. Fines totalling over £100m were imposed. The penalties per company were: Deutsche Bank — no fine (due to being granted immunity) Citi — £17,160,000 (including a 35% leniency reduction and a 20% settlement reduction) HSBC — £23,400,000 (including a 10% settlement...
This Practice Note sets out a series of example questions to gather information from the parties, for the purpose of drafting a merger notice to be submitted to the Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA). In practice, parties planning to notify a merger will engage with the CMA’s current notification process, which typically involves filing a case team allocation form ahead of notification and carefully preparing the draft merger notice by reference to the CMA’s merger notice template. Note—the information request will need to be adapted to reflect the specifics of the transaction, the categories of products or services involved, the level of existing knowledge about the parties, the relevant markets, and the potential effects of the proposed transaction in full, where relevant. It should also be carefully tailored to ensure that it captures all information required under the CMA’s current merger notice...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This case hub, now archived, records the position as at the decision dated 29 July 2021; it is no longer being maintained. NOTE— appeals were lodged before the CAT by Hg Capital LLP (1419/1/12/21), Cinven ( Luxo 1) S.a.r.l (1421/1/12/21) and Mercury Pharmaceuticals Limited (1422/1/12/21). See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline CMA Article 102 TFEU/ Chapter II inquiry into Advanz Pharma (formerly Concordia) concerning abuse of dominance by levying excessive and unfair prices for liothyronine tablets. Latest developments On 29 July 2021, the CMA issued an infringement decision finding that Advanz Pharma had abused a dominant position by charging excessive and unfair prices for liothyronine tablets. The CMA imposed penalties exceeding £101.4m, allocated as follows: Advanz Pharma—£40.9m Hg Capital (£8.6m) and Cinven (£51.9m)—two private equity firms that had previously owned businesses now forming part of Advanz Pharma......
Introduction Block exemption rules offer broadly available safe harbours insulating agreements from the UK ban on anti-competitive arrangements in Chapter I (notably section 2) of the Competition Act 1998 ( CA 1998), provided the agreement satisfies the conditions in the relevant block exemption regulation. Each such measure rests on the assumption that any restrictive agreement within its ambit fulfils the four criteria in CA 1998, s 9 that are required for an individual exemption from the application of CA 1998, s 2 (see also, Practice Note: Chapter I prohibition). A block exemption regulation therefore establishes a safe harbour, shielding restrictive arrangements from legal challenge under CA 1998, s 2. Before 1 January 2023, the applicable block exemption for specialisation agreements was Retained Regulation ( EU) 1218/2010, the Retained Specialisation Block Exemption Regulation ( UK Retained SBER), which applied in the UK as EU...
1. What is the applicable legislation? At present, Switzerland has no overarching law that either bans or mandates systematic screening of foreign investments on national interest grounds across all industries. Nevertheless, certain statutes specifically govern foreign investment in defined sectors: the Swiss Federal Act on the Acquisition of Immovable Property in Switzerland by Foreign Non- Residents (the Lex Koller), which regulates the acquisition of immovable property in Switzerland by foreign nationals, companies domiciled abroad, and Swiss-domiciled companies under foreign control the Swiss Federal Banking Act (the Federal Banking Act) and the Federal Act on Financial Institutions the Swiss Federal Act on Telecommunications (the Telecommunications Act, TCA) and the Federal Ordinance on Telecommunication Services ( OTS) the Swiss Federal Nuclear Energy Act the Swiss Federal Act on Radio and Television the Swiss Federal Aviation Act and the Swiss Federal...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this page captures the position as at the judgment dated 16 September 2013; it is no longer being updated. See also: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVE—16/09/2013 Outline Appeals were brought before the General Court seeking annulment, partial annulment and/or reductions in the individual fines levied, arising from the Commission’s decision of 3 October 2007, which found breaches of Article 101 TFEU and ordered aggregate penalties of €183.65m on four corporate groups for purported involvement in a price‑fixing and cartel allocating markets and customers in the Spanish bitumen sector between 1991 and 2002 (‘ Spanish bitumen cartel’). On 16 September 2013, the General Court upheld all substantive findings of the Commission and rejected in full the claims by Repsol, CEPSA and PROAS, but marginally cut the fines for GALP and Nynäs. These matters focus, amongst other things, on the...
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
