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
1. What is the applicable legislation? The key statute regulating foreign direct investment ( FDI) control is the Investment Promotion Act ( Official Gazette Nos. 13/18, 204/21, 29/22, 65/23 and 31/24, the Act). It defines the categories of investment incentives, the qualifying conditions and criteria, the procedure for granting such incentives, and measures designed to stimulate investment and support the internationalisation of business entities in Slovenia. On FDI, the Act is aligned with Regulation ( EU) 2019/452 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019, which sets an EU framework for screening FDI that may affect security or public order. EU Member States may keep their existing screening mechanisms, introduce new ones, or opt to have none. Nonetheless, several core requirements must be met, including transparency of rules and procedures, the ability to seek recourse against screening...
This table outlines all completed inquiries by Slovenia’s competition watchdog (the Slovenian Competition Protection Agency— SCPA) into suspected cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominance ( Articles 101/102 TFEU and national counterparts) since 2018. Note—only publicly disclosed investigations are shown 2025 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/ Article 6 of the Competition Act Automotive — Renault nissan slovenija (now: GA Adriatic); Avtohiša real; Avtohiša malgaj; Pleško Cars; Avtoservis Kalan — Cartel — Infringement decision announced (after settlement) — 15/01/2025; fines totalling over 1m Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/ Article 9 of the Competition Act The SCPA has not yet issued any decisions under Article 101/ Article 6 in 2025 2024 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/ Article 6 of the Competition Act Veterinary medicine — Veterinary Chamber of Slovenia — Restrictive agreements—price fixing — Infringement decision announced (after settlement) — 22/01/2024; fines totalling...
1. What is the applicable legislation? The principal statute governing FDI screening in Slovakia is Act No. 497/2022 Coll. on the Screening of Foreign Investments, as amended (the FDI Act 2022). From its commencement on 1 March 2023, the provisions of the FDI Act 2022 apply to every foreign investment made in the Slovak Republic. The screening regime was introduced to create a comprehensive system through which Slovak authorities may assess, as appropriate, impose remedies on, or prohibit foreign investments that might endanger the security or public order of Slovakia or the European Union. Beyond this, the FDI Act 2022 sets rules for certain elements of the Slovak Republic’s collaboration with other EU Member States and with the Commission in relation to foreign direct investments. In doing so, notably, the FDI Act 2022 facilitates the effective application of Regulation ( EU) 2019/452 of the...
This table summarises all completed investigations by Singapore’s competition authority (the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore—the CCCS) into alleged cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominant positions since 2018. Note—only investigations that have been made public are included in this table. 2025 Investigations under section 34 of the Competition Act Remittance services — ZGR Global; Hanshan Issues: Restrictive agreement—information exchange Developments: Decision finding infringement—31/07/2025; penalties totalling $5.36m imposed Contracting — Trust- Build Engineering & Construction Pte. Ltd; Hunan Fengtian Construction Group Co. Ltd Issues: Restrictive agreement—bid rigging Developments: Decision finding infringement—23/05/2025; penalties totalling $4.6m imposed ...
As a rule, arrangements whose purpose or consequence is to restrict, distort or impede competition are barred by Article 101(1) TFEU. Agreements with an anti-competitive object are treated as particularly high risk and are presumed to harm markets; owing to their gravity, there is no requirement to demonstrate an actual adverse impact on competition. The concept of an agreement’s object has long been one of the most contested issues in competition law, supported by extensive case law reaching back to 1966. Historically, the test for identifying an anti-competitive object was read broadly, capturing many agreements even where it appeared the parties had no such intention. This expansive approach reflected the pre-2004 regime, under which only the European Commission (the Commission) could apply the exemption in Article 101(3) TFEU. Consequently, Article 101(1) TFEU and the object test existed primarily to indicate when the...
NOTE—to check if notification thresholds within the Republic of Ireland and across the world are satisfied, see also: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Irish merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Ireland? The Irish Competition ( Amendment) Act 2022 (the 2022 Act) broadened the merger control remit of the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission ( CCPC). A key reform introduced a ‘call-in’ mechanism empowering the CCPC to demand notification of sub-threshold deals where the transaction could harm competition in markets for goods or services within the Republic of Ireland/the State. Although the CCPC has not yet, to date, exercised this tool, it has stepped up scrutiny of non-notifiable deals by sending formal requests for information ( RFIs), with a view to the...
NOTE—to check if notification thresholds in Zimbabwe and globally are satisfied, consult the resource titled Where to Notify. Note— Zimbabwe also belongs to COMESA, which runs a supra-national merger control system, as well as the SADC. Introduction Zimbabwe’s merger oversight framework is set out in section 34A of the Competition Act ( Act) and its accompanying Regulations. Filings are compulsory for deals that hit the prescribed financial thresholds, and such transactions must be notified to the Competition and Tariff Commission ( Commission). The Commission, an independent authority empowered under section 4 of the Act, is the sole body with the mandate to investigate and clear a merger. Consequently, no other domestic authority may review its determinations. A dissatisfied party may, however, challenge the Commission’s decision before the Administrative Court. For purposes of the Act, a ‘merger’ covers the direct or indirect obtaining or creation of a...
Note— Zambia is also a member of COMESA, which runs a supranational merger control regime, and the Southern African Development Community. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Zambian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Zambia? The Competition and Consumer Protection ( Amendment) Act No. 21 of 2023 ( Amendment Act) took effect on 26 December 2023, revising multiple provisions of the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission Act No. 24 of 2010 (the Act). These revisions constitute the most significant overhaul since the Act commenced in October 2010. A key shift is that the Amendment Act at last gives domestic effect to the COMESA Competition Regulations, resolving a long-standing gap, notably for merger control. In addition, new rules concerning ‘ Core Assets’, as defined in the...
CASE HUB ( NOTE— ICAP lodged an appeal before the General Court in Case T-180/15; see Case T-180/15 Icap and Others v Commission) ARCHIVED – this hub captures the position as at the final decision of 4 February 2015 and is no longer updated. See further: timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline: European Commission Article 101 TFEU probe into a cartel affecting Yen interest rate derivatives ( Case AT.39861). Five banks ( UBS, RBS, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan and Citigroup) together with RP Martin settled with the Commission and, on 04/12/2013, received aggregate fines of €669.719m; a second broker, ICAP, declined to settle and was later fined €14.96m by the Commission on 04/02/2015. Latest developments On 28 May 2021, the Commission issued its re-adopted decision imposing total penalties of €6.45m on ICAP. That decision followed the General Court’s ruling in Case T-180/15, which set aside the fines levied on ICAP in...
The table beneath sets out essential procedural details, reflecting local laws, across every merger control regime worldwide. We aim to balance usability with fidelity to source texts, employing familiar wording to outline legal threshold tests while preserving crucial terminology. The balance struck is intended to aid quick reference without sacrificing accuracy. Where practicable, we rely on plain, commonly used phrasing to condense threshold tests, whilst retaining the key words from the sources. For exact formulations, please consult the merger guides together with the underlying legislation. For jurisdictional overviews (including notification thresholds) to assess whether filings are needed across all regimes, see further MJ merger grid—jurisdiction. For timelines covering filing deadlines and phase I review schedules, consult MJ merger control deadlines—checklist. Note: to check if thresholds are met in any jurisdiction worldwide, see Where to Notify. For global,...
CASE HUB ( Appeals lodged at the General Court in Cases T- 256/12 ( Hautau), T- 248/12 ( Fuhr), T- 252/12 ( Gretsch- Unitas), T- 292/12 ( Alban) and T- 257/12 ( Siegenia- Aubi) ARCHIVED – This archive records the position as at the decision dated 28/02/2012 and is no longer being updated. See further: Timeline Case facts Outline European Commission inquiry into price fixing concerning window mountings (case number COMP/39.452). Latest developments: On 28 March 2012, the Commission adopted an infringement decision and levied fines amounting to €85.876m......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archive captures the position as at the judgment of 21 January 2021 and is no longer being updated. For more, consult the timeline and related/relevant cases... Case facts Outline Case C-308/19 Whitleland Import Export — a preliminary reference from Romania — sought clarification on whether, amongst other matters, Articles 4(3) TFEU and 101 TFEU should be construed as follows: They oblige the courts of the Member States to read national provisions on the limitation period governing the Competition Authority’s power to levy administrative penalties in line with Article 25(3) of Regulation ( EC) No 1/2003(1); and They rule out an interpretation of national law whereby an act interrupting the limitation period is confined solely to the formal step of opening an investigation into an anti-competitive practice, excluding subsequent investigatory measures taken for the purposes of that inquiry from being treated as...
A conversation with Lerisha Naidu, Partner, Angelo Tzarevski, Partner, and Sphesihle Nxumalo, Director Designate, in the South African office of international law firm Baker Mc Kenzie on key issues regarding merger control in WAEMU 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding WAEMU's merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in WAEMU? The West African Economic and Monetary Union ( Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine, WAEMU) is a regional bloc of eight states with a dedicated merger control framework under Directive 02/2002/ CM/ UEMOA. Merger control falls solely within WAEMU’s remit across these territories. In most member countries, domestic competition bodies supervise the internal market, flag anti-competitive behaviour, and remit applications seeking negative clearance or individual exemptions to the WAEMU Competition Commission. There have been no changes to the regime, none are...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 17 August 2012; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline: UK merger examination into the completed purchase by VPS Holdings Limited of Sitex Orbis Holdings Limited. Latest developments The CC determined that an SLC existed in the provision of SSVP to social housing customers throughout Great Britain; to commercial customers in Scotland, South Wales, south-west and north-east England; and to commercial customers with nationwide SSVP requirements. The CC required VPS to divest the Sitex Orbis GB operation to an acceptable upfront purchaser under contractual commitment before VPS could proceed with carving out the Northern Ireland business unit. A monitoring trustee would stay in place until the divestment was...
CASE HUB ( Appeal lodged by Visa before the General Court in Case T- 447/12) ARCHIVED – this archived case hub captures the position as at 29 April 2019, when commitments were accepted; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission investigation under Article 101 TFEU into multilateral interchange fees ( MIFs) set by Visa (case number AT.39398). Latest development On 29 April 2019, the Commission stated it had accepted commitments proposed by Visa concerning inter-regional interchange fees. These commitments will cut inter-regional exchange fees by roughly 40% on average. Parties Visa Inc, including its subsidiary Visa Europe Background The Commission formally launched its investigation in March 2008. A statement of objections was issued to Visa in April 2009. In December 2010, after a market test, the Commission accepted commitments from Visa Europe on debit card MIFs, capping them at...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment of 23 October 2017; it is no longer maintained. For more, see the timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts ARCHIVE 26/10/2017 Outline An appeal to the General Court against the European Commission decision refusing VIMC’s complaint pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation 1/2003. Latest developments On 23 October 2017, the General Court handed down its judgment, rejecting in full the action to annul the European Commission’s decision to refuse VIMC’s complaint, on the basis that the matters raised were already being examined by a national competition authority ( Case AT.40231). The General Court held that the Commission correctly applied the principles in Article 13(1) of Regulation 1/2003, exercising its discretion not to open an investigation because the Austrian national competition authority was already conducting one......
NOTE—to check whether notification thresholds in Vietnam and worldwide are triggered, please consult: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Vietnamese merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Vietnam? In 2020, Vietnam promulgated Decree 35 on Detailed Regulations for Implementation of the Law on Competition dated 24 March 2020 ( Decree 35), which became effective on 15 May 2020. This marked a pivotal step in putting into operation the competition framework envisaged under the Law on Competition dated 12 June 2018 ( Competition Law). The body designated under the Competition Law, the Vietnam Competition Committee ( VCC), was established on 1 April 2023 and from that date assumed responsibility for the merger control regime. Decree 35 introduced the following clarifications to merger control: ...
1. What is the applicable legislation? The Law on Investment 2020 ( Investment Law 2020), effective from 1 January 2021, is the central statute regulating foreign direct investment ( FDI) in Vietnam. A number of implementing decrees have been promulgated to steer the Investment Law’s application, including the Guidelines on the implementation of the Law on Investment 2020 and Decree No. 31/2021/ ND- CP, dated 26 March 2021 ( Decree 31 2021), which provides guidance on several articles of the Investment Law. Together, the Investment Law and its implementing decrees set out the scope, administration and applicable licensing framework for foreign investment in Vietnam. 2. Which government or other body (or bodies) reviews foreign investments? The Ministry of Planning and Investment ( MPI) is the principal regulator of FDI in Vietnam, acting mainly through its dedicated agencies, the Business Registration Agency and the Foreign...
This Practice Note cites Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 ( CA 1998), the Competition Act 1998 ( Vertical Agreements Block Exemption) Order 2022 ( VABEO), the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 ( DMCCA), and the Competition and Markets Authority’s ( CMA) guidance on VABEO (the VABEO Guidance). What is a vertical agreement? A vertical agreement is a contract concluded between distinct undertakings operating at separate tiers of the supply chain, for instance a manufacturer and its distributors. A supplier might opt for one or several resellers of its goods or services, across one or more layers of distribution, such as a UK-wide or country/region-specific importer, followed by additional resellers at wholesale and retail levels. All such arrangements amount to vertical agreements. They may span successive stages from manufacture to wholesale and retail within the same supply chain. By their nature, these...
This Practice Note references the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation, Commission Regulation 2022/720 ( VBER 2022), and the Commission’s 2022 Guidelines on Vertical Restraints (2022 Guidelines). What is a vertical agreement? A vertical agreement is a contract concluded by distinct undertakings working at separate stages of the supply chain—eg a producer and its distributors. A supplier may choose a single or multiple resellers for its products or services, across one or more layers of the chain, for instance an EU or country‑specific importer and additional resellers operating at wholesale and retail levels. These arrangements all amount to vertical agreements. Such agreements are typically between non‑competitors, in contrast to horizontal agreements, which are between competitors. Vertical agreements can assume various forms. The principal types include: agency; exclusive distribution; selective distribution; ‘free’ or non‑exclusive...
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
