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
NOTE—to check whether notification thresholds in Venezuela and globally are met, please refer to: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Venezuelan merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Venezuela? A new Antitrust Decree- Law ( ADL) took effect in November 2014, superseding the Promotion and Protection of Competition Act of 1992. While the ADL diverges from the former statute in its breadth of application, it makes no major alterations to the merger control framework. Additional merger-related rules can apply depending on the economic sector in which the businesses operate—for instance, the Telecommunications Organic Act, the Banking Act, the Capital Markets Act, and the Organic Law of the National Financial System. Where such sectoral frameworks apply, the respective regulatory processes must be followed before the...
Note—to check if notification thresholds in Uzbekistan and throughout the world are satisfied, see: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the merger control regime in Uzbekistan and are any updates or developments expected? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Uzbekistan? Uzbekistan’s merger control framework is now set by the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan No ZRU-850 of 3 July 2023 on Competition (the Competition Law). It takes effect on 4 October 2023, superseding the Law on competition No ZRU-319 of 6 December 2012. The Competition Law applies to merger oversight across both financial and commodity markets. Complementary rules appear in Regulation No 86, which approves a unified procedure for issuing permission documents via a dedicated electronic system. Annex 12 to Regulation No 86 establishes a Passport for reviewing and obtaining preliminary consent for...
1. What is the applicable legislation? On 27 January 2020, the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. 598 dated 25 December 2019 “ On Investments and Investment Activities” (the Investment Law) entered into force. It unified the key provisions of prior investment legislation, notably the statutes “ On foreign investments”, “ On investment activities”, and “ On guarantees and measures to protect the rights of foreign investors”, which ceased to apply upon its commencement. The Investment Law’s core aim is to govern relations in the sphere of investments and investment activity undertaken by both foreign and domestic investors. It sets out the types and forms of investment, the legal regime for investments, the objects and participants of investment activity, investor rights and duties, state-backed guarantees of investor rights and investment protection, the state’s regulation of investment activity, state support for...
ARCHIVED – this case hub captures the position as at the date of the decision of 28 April 2020; it is no longer maintained or updated. NOTE— appeals were filed before the General Court in Cases T- 386/21 and T- 406/21. See also: timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU inquiry into the sharing of commercially sensitive information and price coordination relating to US dollar denominated supra-sovereign, sovereign and agency bonds ( Case AT.40346). Latest development On 28 April 2021, the Commission adopted an infringement decision against Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Crédit Agricole and Credit Suisse for taking part in a cartel in the EEA secondary trading market for US dollar denominated Supra-sovereign, Sovereign and Agency bonds. A tight-knit circle of traders at these investment banks, who knew one another on a personal level, formed the cartel. The Commission concluded that, during a...
NOTE—to check whether notification thresholds in Uruguay and around the globe are triggered, see further: Where to Notify. 1. What recent changes affect the Uruguayan merger control regime, what updates are anticipated over the next year, and are there any other ‘hot’ merger control topics in Uruguay? Recent reforms to the Uruguayan merger control regime Since 2021, Uruguay has enacted a series of statutes—namely Act No. 20,075, Act No. 20,212, and Act No. 20,446 (the Reforms)—which amend Act No. 18,159 on the Promotion and Defence of Competition 15/2007 ( Competition Act 2007), itself previously revised by Act No. 19,833 and Act No. 19,996. These measures brought significant adjustments to the country’s merger control framework, such as: changes to the review timelines applicable to the Enforcement Body; clarifying the moment the statutory review clock starts to run; creating additional extensions for particularly complex filings;...
CASE HUB ( NOTE—appeal lodged by Commission at Court of Justice in Case C- 265/17 P) ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 7 March 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/similar cases Case facts UPS brought an action before the General Court to annul the Commission’s decision of 30 January 2013 that blocked its planned acquisition of TNT ( Case M.6570), challenging the prohibition measure imposed on the transaction. Outline On 7 March 2017, the General Court annulled the Commission’s decision due to a procedural defect. The Court found that UPS’s rights of defence were breached because the Commission relied on an econometric analysis that, in its final form, had not been discussed with the parties during the administrative phase. This case stands out as merger prohibitions by the Commission are uncommon, and...
Note— To verify whether notification thresholds in the United States and worldwide are met, please refer to: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments or noteworthy items in relation to ? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in the US? Recent developments and key trends include: Changes to HSR Act framework: On 10 October 2024, the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC) confirmed the final version of proposed amendments to the Hart‑ Scott‑ Rodino ( HSR) Act rules, which took effect on 10 February 2025. The revisions materially widen the volume and categories of information, documents and data required for HSR submissions. They particularly seek fuller detail on private equity and other financial sponsor organisations, officer and director board appointments, any existing or potential horizontal or vertical overlaps between the parties, and further information on corporate and...
NOTE—to check if notification thresholds in Ukraine and across the globe are triggered, please refer to: Where to Notify 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Ukrainian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Also, are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Ukraine? Despite the severe disruption caused by the ongoing war initiated by the Russian Federation ( RF), the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine ( AMC) has continued to function without interruption. Notably, in 2024 the AMC reviewed over 550 merger notifications, broadly matching pre-war levels, and the volume of filings in 2025 exceeded 1,000. From 1 January 2024, reforms to the competition law framework took effect, moving Ukraine closer to European Union ( EU) practice. These reforms introduced, among other measures, the partial scrapping of the outdated ‘seller attribution rule’, refinements to what...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision dated 31 May 2012; it is no longer being maintained. See the timeline. Case facts Outline of a UK merger investigation into the completed acquisition of Cambridge Water Plc by South Staffordshire Plc. Latest developments On 31 May 2012, the CC granted unconditional clearance to the merger. Parties South Staffordshire Plc ( SS): supplies drinking water from the edge of Ashborne in the north to Halesowen in the south, and from Burton on Trent in the east across to Kinver in the west. Cambridge Water Plc ( CAM): provides drinking water to the City of Cambridge. Background The parties serve a wide customer base that includes a range of caterers, retailers such as convenience stores, and other businesses and traders. Their largest national competitors are Bestway and Costco......
This Practice Note outlines the principal UK competition law considerations that arise in distribution and reseller arrangements. It is designed chiefly for commercial and IT practitioners who are conducting their own competition assessment—particularly in‑house counsel without immediate access to specialists—while also serving as a handy reference for competition lawyers delivering comprehensive advice to clients. It covers: a concise summary of the UK regime for vertical agreements; core points to consider in an initial review of a distribution/reseller contract; specific risk areas, with drafting pointers to steer clear of traps. The emphasis is on securing compliance with the UK vertical agreements block exemption—the Competition Act 1998 ( Vertical Agreements Block Exemption) Order 2022 ( VABEO). Overview of the law Chapter I prohibition Distribution and reseller deals fall within section 2 of the Competition Act 1998 ( CA 1998), which bans agreements between...
Vertical agreements Under section 2(1) of the Competition Act 1998 ( CA 98), vertical agreements are banned. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 ( DMCC Act) has revised the language in section 2 so that, in specified situations, it captures arrangements carried out beyond the UK. The prohibition covers agreements between undertakings, concerted practices, and decisions of associations of undertakings that have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the UK, or any part of it, and which may influence trade in the UK or a part of it where such agreements, decisions or practices are implemented, or intended to be implemented, in the UK. In all other instances, the ban extends to conduct likely to have an immediate, substantial and foreseeable impact on trade within the UK or a part of the UK. In...
ARCHIVED – this case hub captures the position as at the judgment of 17 June 2020; it is no longer being maintained. For additional detail, see the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal to the Supreme Court by Mastercard and Visa against the Court of Appeal’s ruling of 4 July 2018 on the legality of Mastercard and Visa’s multilateral interchange fees ( MIFs). Latest developments On 17 June 2020, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment, dismissing three of the four grounds of appeal. It determined, among other matters, that the Court of Appeal was correct to find that multilateral interchange fees infringe Article 101 TFEU. Parties Appellants: Mastercard Incorporated, Mastercard Incorporated International, Mastercard Europe and Mastercard/ Europay UK Limited (together Mastercard Respondents: Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Asda Stores Argos Limted and Others WM Morrisons Supermarkets PLC Cross- Appellants: Asda Stores Limited Argos Limited and...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 1 November 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts An appeal was made to the Supreme Court by Servier Laboratories Ltd and others, contesting the Court of Appeal’s ruling of 27 June 2019. That decision held that certain factual findings in the General Court’s judgment in Case C-691/14 Servier and Others v Commission are not binding on national courts, in the context of a stand‑alone damages action arising from the European Commission’s decision of 9 July 2014. The Commission had found Servier’s ‘pay for delay’ settlement agreements with generic companies concerning perindopril to be anti‑competitive ( AT.39612). Latest developments On 6 November 2020, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment, unanimously dismissing the appeal. It determined that the General Court findings relied upon by...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 9 April 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related/similar cases. Case facts Outline: the Supreme Court determined that the follow-on damages proceedings pursued by Deutsche Bahn and others against Morgan Crucible and others were time‑barred, stemming from the European Commission’s infringement decision concerning the Electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products cartel. The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on 09/04/2014. Parties Claimants 31 claimants lodged a claim: Deutsche Bahn AG DB Netz AG DB Energie Gmb H DB Regio AG S- Bahn Berlin Gmb H S- Bahn Hamburg Gmb H DB Regio NRW Gmb H DB Kommunikationstechnik Gmb H DB Schenker Rail Deutschland AG DB Bahnbau Gruppe Gmb H DB Fahrzeuginstandhaltung Gmb H DB Fernverkehr AG DB Schenker Rail ( UK) Ltd Loadhaul Limited Mainline Freight Limited Rail Express Systems Limited DB Schenker Rail International Limited (formerly English Welsh & Scottish Railway...
This outlines ongoing and completed merger transactions where the UK government has acted on public interest considerations under the Enterprise Act 2002. Ongoing cases Parties Stage Public interest ground Industry sector; product market Decision Daily Mail and General Trust plc/ Telegraph Media Group — Phase 1 — Media plurality — Communications Public Interest Merger Reference ( Telegraph Media Group Holdings Limited) ( Pre-emptive Action) Order 2026 published—19/02/2026 Secretary of State for Department for Culture, Media and Sport issues a PIIN—12/02/2026 Case page Completed cases 2025 Parties Stage Public interest ground Industry sector; product market Decision Red Bird IMI/ Telegraph Media Group (anticipated acquisition) — Phase 1 — Media plurality — Communications Second...
Introduction Block exemption rules offer broadly applicable safe harbours for agreements from the UK ban on anti-competitive agreements set out in Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 (notably section 2), so long as the agreement satisfies the conditions of the relevant block exemption. Each such regime rests on the assumption that any restrictive deal within its ambit meets the four criteria in section 9 of the Competition Act 1998 required to obtain an individual exemption from section 2 (see also, Practice Note: Chapter I prohibition). As a result, a block exemption creates a safe harbour shielding restrictive arrangements from challenge under section 2 of the Competition Act 1998. Before 1 January 2023, research and development ( R& D) agreements were covered by Retained Regulation ( EU) 1217/2010, the Retained Research and Development Block Exemption Regulation ( UK Retained R& D BER), which...
Many UK industries are overseen by their own regulator—some (though not all) also possess concurrent competition powers, giving them authority to enforce competition law within their particular sector, alongside their routine supervisory functions. The framework for supervising distinct industries in the UK is intricate because of the interaction between a regulator’s sector‑specific rules and the application of competition law, and the need to balance both sets of powers coherently in practice. This regime developed after the privatisation of various sectors and through the steady refinement of regulation over time, reflecting incremental changes rather than a single redesign within the UK context. Every regulated area is governed by its own specific and comprehensive framework, in considerable detail. Accordingly, although many issues and procedures are shared across most regulated sectors, the particulars frequently diverge in material and sometimes fundamental ways in practice....
This table outlines all concluded Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA) phase 2 merger inquiries and completed Competition Commission ( CC) merger inquiries under the Enterprise Act 2002, plus CC inquiries under the Fair Trading Act 1973, dating back to 2000. For details on live inquiries, see UK mergers—ongoing cases tracker. For closed phase 1 inquiries, see UK phase 1 mergers—closed cases tracker. For appeals, see UK competition appeals—ongoing cases tracker. 2026 Parties Industry sector Issues Decision Constellation Developments Limited/ ABVR Holdings Limited (completed acquisition) Motor industry Horizontal overlaps in the provision of business-to-business ( B2B) used vehicle auction services across Great Britain Cleared—05/03/2026 Interim report published—22/01/2026 Administrative timetable published—17/10/2025 Referred to phase 2—13/10/2025 Aramark/ Entier (completed acquisition) Catering services Horizontal overlaps in the provision of catering and related facilities management services to the offshore energy sector in the UK North Sea ...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this preserved case hub shows the status as at the decision date of 31 October 2013; it is not being updated further. Case facts Outline OFT Article 102 TFEU/ Chapter II formal inquiry into an alleged misuse of market power relating to 'direct bunkering' services for HGV fleets (case reference CE/9278–10) Latest developments On 31 October 2013, the OFT ended its inquiry......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 27 March 2014; it is no longer maintained See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline of the OFT’s Chapter I investigation into Pride Mobility Products and retailers concerning mobility scooters ( Case CE/9578-12). Latest developments On 27 March 2014, the OFT delivered its infringement decision and instructed the companies to cease the arrangements (where this has not already occurred) and to refrain from entering comparable arrangements in future. No fines were imposed, as the agreements qualified as a ‘small agreement’ exempt from penalties—this applies where the parties’ combined turnover is below £20m and price fixing is not involved. The OFT has issued its statement of objections, and the parties will now have the chance to respond......
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
