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
This Practice Note offers a concise guide to UK competition law for commercial contracts. It summarises the principal elements of the legal regime, with opening sections on the main categories of commercial agreements relevant to competition law and a sketch of the rules that govern each. It aims to set context and flag what may warrant deeper consideration. It also signposts other Practice Notes and Checklists so readers can locate more detail on specific subjects. This Practice Note centres on anti-competitive agreements under Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 ( CA 1998). It does not address other areas of UK competition law, such as abuse of dominance under Chapter II of the CA 1998, or merger control. Note that Chapter I of the CA 1998 covers not only written contracts but also far looser arrangements. It is assumed here that the reader is...
This summarises completed UK antitrust enforcement actions since 2016. Further details on concluded CMA, OFT and sectoral regulator behavioural probes appear in UK behavioural investigations under Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I Competition Act—closed cases tracker and UK behavioural investigations......
UK competition law UK competition law polices anti-competitive behaviour, oversees merger control and promotes competitive markets. The Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA) is the principal UK competition authority. Created by the merger of the OFT and the Competition Commission, it took over enforcing competition law in the UK on 1 April 2014. The CMA, together with other concurrent competition authorities, has powers to: enforce prohibitions on anti-competitive agreements and on abuse of a dominant position (see further, Chapter I prohibition and Chapter II prohibition) bring criminal prosecutions against individuals responsible for implementing hardcore cartels (see further, The UK criminal cartel offence) seek director disqualification orders against directors involved in competition law breaches (see further, Director disqualification) investigate UK mergers and block them or require remedies where they would result in a substantial lessening of competition (see further, UK merger...
This Practice Note gives a concise summary of the nature and significance of competition law and sets out actions you can take to identify and reduce competition law risks specific to your organisation. It is designed to help you keep your business compliant with competition law and to recognise when others are engaging in unlawful anti-competitive conduct. Finally, it explains the steps you can take if you believe competition law has been breached. Why complying with competition law matters Competition benefits both companies and consumers. It exposes where firms should improve and prompts organisations to pursue greater efficiency, become more innovative and productive, and ultimately operate as stronger businesses. Competition law exists to protect businesses and consumers from anti-competitive behaviour and to safeguard effective competition. Every business must comply with competition law and there can be serious consequences for businesses and...
Land agreements Few would instinctively link land agreements with competition law, yet it is important to avoid arrangements that may trigger such concerns. A land agreement is one that creates, varies, transfers or ends an interest in land. Illustrations include: a contract for the sale of the freehold a lease assignments of leasehold interests agreements concerning easements licences and, in Scotland, interests under a lease and other heritable rights in or over land, such as heritable securities Historically, land agreements were carved out from the UK ban on anti-competitive agreements under section 2 of the Competition Act 1998 (the Chapter I prohibition). However, during the Competition Commission’s investigation into the groceries sector, issues were identified with grocery retailers using restrictive covenants to stop land being developed for competing supermarkets. In practice, this operated as a barrier to entry. The UK...
This table summarises all public announcements made by the CMA and concurrent sector regulators of dawn raids that have been carried out into alleged breaches of competition law since 2000 under the Competition Act 1998 and/or the Enterprise Act 2002 2024: Construction (roofing services) — companies not identified; CMA; suspected restrictive agreements—bid rigging; raid in 2024. 2021: Leicester City FC merchandise — CMA; alleged restrictive agreements—price collusion; raid in 2021. 2019: Supply of construction services — CMA; collusion—bid rigging; raid in 2019. 2019: Guitars (50565-3) — Fender Musical Instruments Europe Ltd; CMA; restrictive agreements— RPM; raid on 26/03/2019. 2018: Casio (digital pianos/keyboards) (50565-2) — CMA; restrictive agreements— RPM. Headings: 2024 — Case name, companies under investigation and industry; Competition authority; Issues; Date of dawn raid. 2021 — Case name, companies under investigation and industry; Competition authority; Issues; Date of dawn raid. 2019 —...
This table collates and outlines all concluded claims relating to an infringement decision or an alleged breach of UK competition law, and (for claims lodged before 1 January 2021) EU competition law, that have been publicly acknowledged before the CAT or the UK courts. Given the volume of private actions before the UK courts, completed cases are grouped as: Trucks Air freight Cathode ray tubes and liquid crystal display ( LCD) Motor vehicle components Google Master Card— MIFs Visa— MIFs Polyurethane foam Power cables Other actions Collective actions ‘ Pay-for-delay’ For ongoing actions, see UK private actions—ongoing cases tracker. Note—we have only used public sources to follow High Court cases; proceedings prior to judgment may therefore not appear in the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 14 March 2012; it is no longer maintained. See also the timeline and related cases for further detail. Case Facts Outline UK merger inquiry into creating a joint venture between Alpha Flight Group and LSG Lufthansa Service Holding AG. Latest developments The CC granted unconditional clearance to the joint venture on 14 March 2012. Parties Alpha Flight Group and LSG Lufthansa Service Holding ( LSG) plan to pool their UK trading assets and activities in a 50/50 joint venture. Alpha is owned by Dnata, a sister company of the international airline Emirates. LSG is a subsidiary of the German airline Lufthansa. Both Alpha and LSG supply logistics and conventional catering at Heathrow and other UK airports. Alpha has a strong regional footprint, while LSG has a larger Heathrow and global presence....
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 28 March 2014 and is no longer updated. See the timeline and related cases for further details. Case facts Outline UK merger review of the completed joint venture between Tradebe Environmental Services Limited and Sita UK Limited. Latest developments The CC cleared the transaction unconditionally on 28 March 2014, confirming the provisional findings issued on 20 February 2014. Parties Tradebe Environmental Services Limited ( Tradebe) and Sita UK Limited ( Sita). Tradebe delivers waste management services across England, including the collection and disposal of waste, as well as the collection and disposal of clinical waste for the healthcare sector. It operates clinical waste treatment facilities in Doncaster, Birmingham, Bristol and Fawley......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 21 March 2012 and is no longer maintained. For more, see the timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline of a UK merger investigation into the completed acquisition by Stericycle, Inc of Ecowaste Southwest Limited. The deal involved a horizontal overlap in the healthcare risk waste markets. Latest developments On 21 March 2012, the Competition Commission released its final report, finding the transaction had led to an SLC and, in that report, it required Stericycle to dispose of Ecowaste Southwest. Stericycle proposed narrower alternative remedies, including (1) giving a third-party buyer surplus capacity at the Avonmouth plant with an NHS contract, or (2) selling the Avonmouth plant and two customer contracts together with a five-year volume guarantee. The CC, however, did not regard these options as...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the decision date of 10 October 2013; it is not updated. For further details, see the timeline and commentary... Case facts Outline: UK merger inquiry into the completed purchase by Imerys Minerals of Goonvean’s kaolin (china clay) business... Latest developments The CC issued its final report on 10 October 2013. It found that the merger would result in an SLC for the supply of kaolin used in performance-mineral applications, but not for any other markets. As only one market is impacted, the CC determined that divestiture would be a disproportionate remedy; accordingly, it imposed a five-year price control, comprising a price cap through to the end of 2015 and an RPI—0.5% cap covering 2016–2018... Parties Imerys Minerals Limited and the kaolin (china clay) business of Goonvean Limited. Imerys Minerals operates in the extraction and supply of kaolin and other...
CASE HUB (not maintained since decision on 20/11/2013) ARCHIVED – this archived case hub captures the position as at the decision of 20 November 2013; it is no longer maintained. See the timeline and commentary for more. Case facts Outline UK merger inquiry into the completed purchase by Optimax Clinics Limited of Ultralase Limited. Latest developments The CC issued its final report on 20 November 2013, clearing the transaction under the failing firm defence. The CC concluded that Ultralase was a failing firm and would have exited the market if the merger had not occurred. In the absence of the deal, the large majority of its sales would have transferred to Optimax and to Optical Express, the UK market leader......
This table outlines completed CMA, OFT and sectoral regulator investigations from 2013 under Article 102 TFEU/ Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998. Only publicly disclosed cases are included. For ongoing behavioural matters, see UK behavioural investigations—ongoing cases tracker. For appeals, see UK competition appeals—ongoing cases tracker. For completed Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I cases, see UK behavioural investigations under Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I Competition Act—closed cases tracker. For instances where the CMA has pursued director disqualification, see UK competition director disqualifications—cases tracker. 2025 Gas transportation — Scotia Gas Networks; Ofgem. Issue: alleged abuse of dominance. Commitments accepted—02/12/2025 Consultation on commitments launched—09/09/2025 Investigation opened—08/03/2024 Vifor Pharma (abuse of dominance) — Vifor Pharma; CMA. Issue: alleged abuse of...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Appeal ( C3/2018/2863) ARCHIVED – this case hub reflects the position as at the decision of 7 September 2018 and is no longer maintained or updated. See further the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal brought by Ping Europe Limited against the CMA’s decision concerning Ping’s prohibition on online sales in the golf equipment sector in this case, case number 1279/1/12/17, challenging that restriction. Latest development On 7 September 2018, the CAT handed down its judgment in the matter. It rejected Ping’s submissions on the CMA’s substantive findings and sustained the infringement. However, the CAT held the CMA miscalculated the penalty by counting director involvement as an aggravating feature, and accordingly reduced the fine to £1.25m at that time. On 18 September 2018, the CAT made an order further prolonging the suspension of the CMA’s...
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 (cartel infringement) [ Archived] CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub captures the position as at the judgments of 29 September 2023 and 8 March 2024; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeals were brought by Allergan plc, Advanz Pharma Corp, Cinven ( Luxo I) S.a.r.l (formerly Cinven ( Luxco I) S. A.), Auden Mckenzie Pharma) Limited and Intas Pharmaceuticals against the CMA’s decision of 15 July 2021 arising from its Chapter I investigation into a market‑sharing arrangement between Auden Mckenzie Pharma Limited/ Acatais UK and AMCO (now known as Advanz Pharma Corp)/ Advanz Pharma Corp (now known as Accord UK)...
NOTE— Although the Brexit transition period concluded on 31 December 2020, this Practice Note still contains references to EU competition law. This is because, although it is now entirely open to UK regulators and the courts to move away from established EU jurisprudence, any split between the two frameworks is expected to unfold only gradually, because: (i) the UK’s competition regime depends very significantly on concepts developed and refined in EU case law over many years (concepts which the UK courts were historically required to apply in harmony with UK competition law); and (ii) unless the UK chooses to drive faster reform through legislation (which currently appears rather unlikely), the scope for divergence will hinge on the questions arising in cases and matters before the CMA and the courts now that the transition period has formally passed. Given the foregoing, EU...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 1 September 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline An appeal was brought by Cérélia Group Holding SAS and Cérélia UK Limited against the CMA’s decision dated 20 January 2023, relating to the phase 2 final report into the completed purchase by Cérélia Group Holding SAS of specified assets connected to the UK and Ireland dough business Jus- Ro of General Mills, Inc. Latest development On 1 September 2023, the CAT gave its judgment and unanimously rejected the appeal. It determined that: the CMA’s assessment and conclusions on SLC were reasonable, contained no errors of fact or law, and the merger investigation process was not irrational; the CMA’s choice of remedy had a reasonable foundation and was not irrational; no procedural unfairness arose from the CMA’s...
ARCHIVED — this case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 8 June 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary... Case facts Outline Summary of the CAT’s judgment regarding two separate applications for a collective proceedings order ( CPO) by: UK Trucks Claim Limited ( UKTC), an opt-out CPO; and Road Haulage Association Limited ( RHA), an opt-in CPO, each under section 47B of the Competition Act 1998 concerning follow-on damages claims linked to the Commission’s cartel decision of 19 July 2016 ( Case 39824)... Latest development On 8 June 2022, the CAT delivered its judgment, holding that both applications were, in principle, eligible and suitable for a CPO, necessitating a choice between them. The CAT authorised the RHA’s opt-in CPO, finding RHA’s opt-in proceedings preferable to UKTC’s opt-out proposal, and preferable even had UKTC proceeded on an opt-in...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the decision date of 11 February 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline Case facts Outline CMA Chapter II CA98 investigation into suspected breaches of competition law regarding Google’s proposals to remove third party cookies and other functionalities from its Chrome browser (50972). Latest developments On 11 February 2022, the CMA announced its decision to accept modified commitments from Google, to be rolled out globally, to address its competition concerns. The commitments include, amongst others: Involvement of the CMA and the ICO in the development and testing of the Privacy Sandbox proposals, to ensure they deliver effective outcomes for consumers that protect both competition and privacy Google to adopt a more transparent process than initially proposed, including engagement with third parties and the publication of test results, with an option for the CMA to...
This Practice Note offers direction on how UK competition law applies to digital markets. It examines: the reach of the Chapter I prohibition in digital trade, including competition law concerns with horizontal and vertical arrangements; abuse of dominance by online platforms; UK market studies and market investigations concerning digital markets; and reforms brought in by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 ( DMCCA 2024). It underscores both the benefits and the difficulties of maintaining competition law compliance across the digital commerce lifecycle. This applies at every stage and touchpoint in practice today. Introduction to competition law and digital trading Over recent decades, the manner in which traders buy and sell goods has changed dramatically. As the internet and other forms of digital connectivity become embedded within society, traders are ever more dependent on digital platforms to transact with business customers and...
Popular documents
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews mechanisms used in settling litigation. A Tomlin order consists of a consent order paired with a schedule. It operates to stay proceedings on terms that have been agreed. The provisions contained in the schedule may remain confidential. This Practice Note describes the scope of confidentiality attaching to the schedule and sets out how it differs from a standard consent order. Sample wording for a Tomlin order is included, alongside links to precedents, as well as guidance on court approval. It also addresses varying, setting aside and enforcing a Tomlin order, including the considerations the court will take into account when handling applications for each. Further guidance is provided on interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the CPR; however, some courts and divisions impose very specific requirements for both drafting and approval, and for approaching the schedule and confidentiality issues. Accordingly, you must consider the particular rules and court guide provisions in the forum where your claim is proceeding when drawing up the Tomlin order...
Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Landlord) [ name of Tenant ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Tenant) [ [ name of Guarantor ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Guarantor) ] [ [ name of Mortgagee ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Mortgagee) ] Definitions Within this Deed, the terms below shall be interpreted as follows: [ Annual Rent • the annual sum reserved under the Lease; ] [ Insurance Rent • the Tenant’s share of the Landlord’s costs of insuring the Property (as set out in the Lease); ] Lease • the lease of the Property dated [ date ], entered into between (1) [ the Landlord OR [ name ...
I, [ name ], of [ address ], solemnly and sincerely state that: [ Matters to be verified, set out in numbered paragraphs ] I make this solemn statement in good conscience, believing it to be true, and pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. DECLARED at [ details ] this [ day ] day of [ month and year ] Before me ................................................................................ [ signature of the person before whom the declaration is made ] A [ commissioner for oaths OR [ solicitor OR [ insert other qualification ] ] authorised to administer oaths ]...
Discover more from LexisNexis
