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
Scope of the regime ( NSIA 2021) took full effect on 4 January 2022. From that point, the UK Government gained powers to scrutinise and intervene in a broad array of investments in entities operating in the UK, and in purchases of related assets, with the goal of stopping deals that might threaten the UK’s national security. The regime is run by the Investment Security Unit ( ISU) within the Cabinet Office, while the formal decision‑maker is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (described in the Act, and here, as the ‘ Secretary of State’). Beyond handling notifications and associated proceedings, the ISU may issue guidance on the regime and how it applies to particular transactions. Under NSIA 2021, certain investments in business entities active across 17 specified UK sectors must be notified to the ISU by the investor and cleared by the...
Summary This document outlines transactions where the UK government has intervened on national security grounds under the National Security and Investment Act 2021 ( NSI Act 2021) NOTE—before 4 January 2022, the Enterprise Act 2002 ( EA 2002) enabled the UK government to step in on the public interest ground of national security in merger deals The NSI Act 2021 replaced that national security intervention power within the EA 2002 when it commenced on 4 January 2022 NOTE—the EA 2002 public interest provisions that remain (ie plurality of the media, stability of the financial system, and public health emergencies) continue to apply For ongoing and completed merger transactions where the UK government has acted under the surviving EA 2002 public interest provisions, see Government interventions on public interest grounds—merger cases tracker Ongoing cases We are not aware of any publicly disclosed investigations under the NSI Act...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 4 September 2012; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline of the UK merger investigation into the completed and finalised purchase by DCC Energy Limited of certain selected oil distribution operations from Rontec Investments LLP, previously owned by Total UK Limited. Latest developments The CC determined the deal posed no competition issues whatsoever and did not lead to a substantial reduction in rivalry. Therefore, the CC approved the transaction unconditionally. Parties Acquirer— DCC Energy Limited ( DCCE)......
CASE HUB (appeal lodged by Ryanair at the Supreme Court; however, the Supreme Court refused permission to appeal) ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 12 February 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Ryanair appealed the CAT’s decision endorsing the Competition Commission’s ( CC) final report on its completed purchase of a minority holding in Aer Lingus, under which Ryanair was directed to cut its stake from 29.8% to 5%. The Court of Appeal handed down its judgment on 12/02/2015, dismissing the appeal... Parties Ryanair Holdings plc — Europe’s largest low-cost carrier, operating from 49 base airports across Europe; headquartered in Dublin, one of its biggest bases. Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA) (formerly the Competition Commission) Aer Lingus Group plc...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archive reflects the position as at the decision of 27 March 2014 and is no longer maintained or updated. See also the timeline and commentary provided. Case facts Brief outline of the UK merger investigation into the anticipated purchase by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson of Red Bee Media (owned by Creative Broadcast Services). Latest developments On 27 March 2014, the CC approved the deal unconditionally, clearing it to proceed in full. This followed provisional findings, issued on 27 February 2014, which provisionally cleared the merger at that point. One member of the CC panel dissented at the provisional stage, believing the merger could lead to competitive harm in relation to the BBC. There is, however, no reference to any dissent in the final decision or...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the decision dated 21 September 2012; it is no longer updated. For detail, see the timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline of the UK merger inquiry into Mc Gill's Bus Services’ completed purchase of Arriva Scotland West. The Competition Commission approved the deal on 21 September 2012. Latest developments On 21 September 2012, the CC gave unconditional approval formally. Parties Mc Gill's Bus Services Limited ( Mc Gill's) and Arriva Scotland West ( ASW). Mc Gill's is a family-run operator providing local commercial bus services across Inverclyde, Renfrewshire, East Renfrewshire and Glasgow areas......
CASE HUB (note–appealed in Eurotunnel and Société Coopérative de Production Sea France v CMA (2)) ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position as at the 27 June 2014 decision and is no longer updated. See also the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline of a UK merger inquiry into Eurotunnel’s purchase of Sea France’s ferries and other assets (including the remittal that focused, in particular, on the issue of jurisdiction following the first CAT appeals). Latest developments On 22 and 24 July 2014 respectively, Eurotunnel and SCOP lodged appeals with the CAT against the CMA’s decision in the remittal investigation (see Eurotunnel and Société Coopérative de Production Sea France v CMA (2)). The appeals were dismissed by the CAT in its judgment of 9 January 2015. On 27 June 2014, the CMA issued its final decision. It confirmed that it did have...
Under the Enterprise Act 2002 When assessing mergers, the Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA) may accept remedies—undertakings in lieu ( Ui L)—following a phase 1 review, and may impose remedies after phase 2. At phase 1 the CMA cannot force remedies; instead, the merging parties can propose Ui Ls to avert a phase 2 probe. The remedies that can be accepted or imposed include: Structural remedies, such as: disposing of all or part of the target business, or the business to be bought, to an appropriate purchaser creating a divestment package from both merging firms, with the buyer retaining elements of each and selling others on retaining the acquired entity while selling the pre-existing business selling critical assets (eg a...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archive records the position as at the decision date of 8 October 2013 and is no longer maintained. Further information can be found via the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline of a UK merger investigation into the completed purchase of City Screen Limited by Cineworld plc, following completion of the deal in question. Latest developments On 8 October 2013 the Competition Commission issued its final report, upholding its provisional view and finding competition issues in three localities ( Aberdeen, Bury St Edmonds and Cambridge). The transaction was therefore cleared on condition that Cineworld divested one cinema it owned in each of these areas. Each site had to be sold to an operator approved by the CC (now the CMA) with sufficient expertise and experience to continue operating them as cinemas. On 16 February 2015 Cineworld disposed of its Cambridge cinema to The...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position at the decision date of 1 May 2012; it is no longer maintained and is provided for reference only. See further timeline note below for details. timeline NOTE On 26 April 2018, following a request under the undertakings accepted in relation to this transaction, the CMA approved Tarmac’s reacquisition of certain assets of Breedon Group PLC. Case facts Outline A UK merger investigation into the joint venture between Anglo American PLC and Lafarge SA. Latest developments On 1 May 2012, the CC published its final report and, on that date, cleared the JV subject to divestment. The parties agreed a divestiture package with the CC, including disposal of: Tarmac’s stake in MQP primary aggregate RMX cement asphalt RMX plants and linked rail depots There was a subsequent market investigation into the supply of...
UK merger control is set out in the Enterprise Act 2002, as updated by the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 and the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 ( DMCC Act). Under these rules, the Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA) has jurisdiction to review completed and anticipated merger deals where a ‘relevant merger situation’ arises. A ‘relevant merger situation’ exists only if all three of the following are met: two or more enterprises (or businesses) ‘cease to be distinct’ the target’s size or the merger’s effect on competition is sufficient to satisfy at least one jurisdictional threshold test the merger falls within the statutory time limit for review For information on the CMA’s investigation process, see The UK merger investigation process. For details of ongoing UK merger investigations, see UK mergers–case tracker. DMCC Act On 3 June 2024, following Royal Assent...
The UK merger regime is voluntary The UK operates a voluntary merger system: where a deal falls within the scope of the UK merger rules, there is no obligation to obtain clearance in advance—it is for the merging parties to decide whether to notify the Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA). If a transaction is not notified, there remains a risk that the CMA may still open an inquiry and could, in the end, require the disposal of the acquired business (or other businesses or assets). Once underway, a merger review follows a defined procedure with strict timelines: All cases undergo a phase 1 review—the CMA has 40 working days to decide whether the merger gives rise to competition concerns and meets the threshold for referral to a phase 2 investigation. Where the CMA is concerned that the deal will restrict...
The summaries below outline completed appeals by UK competition regulators to the Competition Appeal Tribunal, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court concerning UK merger control under the Enterprise Act 2002. For details of live matters, see UK competition appeals—ongoing cases tracker. Appeals to the Competition Appeal Tribunal Spreadex Limited v CMA (1753/4/12/25) — Appeal against the CMA’s decision in Spreadex/ Sporting Index (remittal), seeking to have the decision set aside. See application. Judgment given—19/03/2026; application dismissed Lodged—17/10/2025 Aramark v CMA (1766/4/12/26) — Application for extra time under Rule 25(3) of the CAT Rules 2015 to file a notice of application under section 120 of the Enterprise Act 2002 to review the CMA’s...
Introduction In the 2022 Queen’s Speech, Government set out a package of reforms spanning digital markets, competition, and consumer protection. On 25 April 2023, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (the Bill) was presented to the House of Commons. The ‘ping‑pong’ phase for debating amendments between the Commons and the Lords was almost finished when the Bill entered the pre‑election ‘wash up’ process following the 2024 general election announcement. On 24 May 2024, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 ( DMCC Act) obtained Royal Assent. Despite Royal Assent, most provisions would commence by statutory instrument, save for rules on foreign takeovers of newspapers and on energy network mergers, which took effect on 24 May 2024 and 24 July 2024 respectively on those dates. On 25 November 2024, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (...
This resource tracks and outlines all UK enforcement action connected to the UK Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 ( DMCCA 2024). For details on all completed UK enforcement actions relating to the DMCCA 2024, see further: UK Digital......
The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 ( DMCCA 2024) The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 ( DMCCA 2024) seeks to establish a framework empowering the Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA) to oversee and boost competition across digital markets. For a chronology of legislative and policy activity around the UK’s revamp of competition law for digital markets since 2018, which culminated in the DMCCA 2024, see UK Digital Markets Competition regime—progress tracker. Set out below is the DMCCA 2024’s progress as it advances through the parliamentary process. 2025 30/10/2025 Government response to DCMS consultation on further changes to the Enterprise Act 2002 ( Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) Regulations 2025 — Response published 16/07/2025 DCMS consultation on proposed further changes to the Enterprise Act 2002 ( Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers)...
This Practice Note charts the progress of legislative and policy changes in the UK’s continuing overhaul of competition in digital markets since 2018. Following Royal Assent of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 ( DMCCA 2024) on 24 May 2024, this Practice Note has stopped tracking developments on that Act; these are now contained in: Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill—progress tracker. Going forward, it will continue to capture all other digital markets developments, except those relating to the DMCCA 2024. EU regulation At EU level, the European Commission has brought forward proposals to ensure digital markets remain fair and open, namely: the Digital Services Act ( DSA) the Digital Markets Act ( DMA) If enacted, the DMA would introduce wide‑ranging reforms to the application of EU competition law to the largest digital platforms. For details on the DMA’s progress through the ordinary...
ARCHIVED – This archived practice note sets out information on the criminal cartel offence as it stood before the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2014 came into force on 1 April 2014. It is no longer updated. The offence criminalises individuals who take part in cartel conduct in the UK. Previously, liability depended on the person having dishonestly entered into any of the following arrangements: fixing prices limiting output dividing markets or customers rigging bids The activity must relate to products or services in the UK and involve individuals at competing firms. The offence can be made out even where the scheme is never put into effect or is unsuccessful. The issue is whether the individual agreed to engage in cartel behaviour (for example, to fix prices) and did so dishonestly; no competition law assessment is required. A person...
This collates and monitors all publicly disclosed investigations conducted under the previous criminal cartel offence (section 188 of the Enterprise Act 2002) from 2008, as well as under the updated criminal cartel offence (reflecting the changes introduced by the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013) which took effect on 1 April 2014. Ongoing investigations There are currently no CMA investigations under the criminal cartel offence that have been publicly announced. Completed investigations 2017 Case name/individual: Supply of precast concrete drainage products ( CE/9705/12) — Barry Kenneth Cooper Issues: Agreement to allocate supply, fix prices and apportion customers between 2006 and 2013; arrangements concern Stanton Bonna ( UK) Ltd, FP Mc Cann Ltd, CPM Group Ltd and Milton Pipes Ltd Developments:......
This Practice Note This Practice Note monitors how retained EU competition law is being superseded in the UK. It specifically addresses: the retained Vertical Block Exemption Regulation, Retained Regulation ( EU) 330/2010 (retained VBER), which has been replaced by The Competition Act 1998 ( Vertical Agreements Block Exemption) Order 2022, SI 2022/516 ( UK VABEO); the retained Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Regulation, Retained Regulation ( EU) 461/2010 (retained MVBER), now replaced by The Competition Act 1998 ( Motor Vehicle Agreements Block Exemption) Order 2023 SI 2023/586 ( MVBEO); the assimilated Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation, Assimilated Regulation 316/2014 (assimilated TTBER); the retained Research and Development Block Exemption Regulation, Retained Regulation ( EU) 1217/2010 (retained R& D BER), replaced by the Competition Act 1998 ( Research and Development Agreements Block Exemption) Order 2022, SI 2022/1271 (the UK R& D BEO); and 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
