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
CASE HUB ARCHIVED -this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 20 March 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the proposed acquisition of VOO SA and Brutélé by Orange Belgium SA ( M.10663). The deal features horizontal overlaps in the provision of retail mobile and fixed telecommunications services. Latest developments On 20 March 2023, the Commission approved the merger subject to commitments. It identified risks that the transaction would: Cut the number of operators from three to two in territories served by VOO and Brutélé’s own fixed networks, thereby removing Orange as an innovative and important competitive constraint; Materially lessen rivalry in markets where Orange, VOO and Brutélé compete closely (fixed internet access, audio-visual services and multiple-play bundles) within the footprint of VOO and Brutélé’s fixed...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment of 27 June 2024 and is not maintained. See further: timeline, Case facts, Outline. Appeals were brought against the General Court’s rulings that in part upheld the Commission’s decision of 9 July 2014 imposing fines on Servier and several generic rivals for conduct delaying the generic entry of perindopril ( AT.39612). Outcome On 27 June 2024, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment. It rejected the appeals of Lupin, Niche Generics, Unichem Laboratories, Matrix, Tevan and Biogaran, thereby confirming the General Court’s findings that the agreements concluded by Servier and Biogaran amounted to market-exclusion arrangements and restricted competition, so those companies remain liable for the Commission’s fines. The Court of Justice largely upheld the General Court’s ruling in Servier’s own appeal, but annulled certain elements concerning the length of the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment dated 9 March 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. This page remains as a record of that position only and is not curated thereafter. Please refer to the timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal brought against the General Court’s judgments in Cases T- 255/1, T–254/17 and T- 249/17, which partially annulled the Commission’s decisions in AT.40466 and AT.40467 authorising dawn raids concerning suspected exchanges of information between companies operating in the supply of hygiene and cleaning products. Outcome On 9 March 2023, the Court of Justice delivered its judgments, setting aside in part the General Court’s rulings and, consequently, annulling the Commission’s decisions ordering the dawn raids. In particular, the Court of Justice found (among other things) that the Commission should have recorded interviews conducted with suppliers of those...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 9 March 2023 and is no longer updated. See further: timeline, Case facts, Outline. Outline Appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T‑430/18, which dismissed an action seeking annulment of the Commission decision granting grandfathering rights over slots released under commitments in Case COMP/ M.6607- US Airways/ American Airlines. Outcome On 16 March 2023, the Court of Justice delivered its ruling, rejecting the appeal in full. It found, among other points, that: the General Court correctly read “appropriate use” as denoting the absence of “misuse”; its assessment of the slot utilisation threshold consistent with no “misuse” was sound, as the commitments did not require a rate above industry practice; Delta was not required to exhaust all allocated slot capacity; and the General Court did not err in its...
CASE HUB NOTE-appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 611/22 ARCHIVED -this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 13 July 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court seeking to set aside the Commission’s decisions of 19 April 2021, by which it accepted a referral under Article 22 EUMR concerning Illumina, Inc.’s proposed acquisition of GRAIL, Inc. ( M.10188). Latest development On 13 July 2022, the General Court handed down its judgment, dismissing Illumina’s action in full. It rejected Illumina’s contention that the Commission lacked authority under Article 22 EUMR to review a concentration referred by a Member State that operates its own merger control regime, even where, on the facts, that transaction fell outside the scope of that domestic...
Case T- 886/19 Design Light & Led Made in Europe and Design Luce & Led Made in Italy v Commission (rejection of complaint) [ Archived] CASE HUB ARCHIVED - this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 13 July 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline An action before the General Court challenging the European Commission’s decision of 25 October 2019 to dismiss a complaint alleging violations of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU by Koninklijke Philips N. V., said to arise from its licensing practices in the LED lighting sector ( AT.39913). Latest developments On 13 July 2022, the General Court delivered its ruling, rejecting the appeal in full. The Court found, amongst other points, that the Commission had not: (i) unlawfully used its discretion by deciding against carrying out a more far‑reaching...
This note collates and condenses legislation, guidance, rulings and wider policy updates that illuminate how competition regulators worldwide address labour market competition concerns (ie wage‑fixing and no‑poach agreements, etc) and reveals their evolving stance in this area. 2026 Jurisdiction and body Details Developments Portugal ( Autoridade Da Concorrenca) The Ad C imposes €4.5m in fines on two associations of temporary work agencies for agreeing not to poach staff, thereby curbing competition in the labour market — Press release published—13/03/2026 UK ( Competition and Markets Authority) The CMA issues its response to the Department for Business and Trade’s working paper on potential reforms to non‑compete clauses in employment contracts — CMA response published—25/02/2026 Poland ( Office of Competition and Consumer Protection) UOKi K confirms it has conducted inspections in the electronic equipment sector and suspects the firms involved may have, among other conduct, concluded no‑poaching...
This tracker compiles notifications from EU and EEA competition authorities on dawn raids into suspected breaches of competition law, as well as the foreign subsidies regime, from 2018 onwards. 2026 dawn raids Autorité de la concurrence ( France): Food supplements and dermo‑cosmetic products; Unknown; Restrictive agreements; PR 06/05/2026; Raid 05/05/2026. Consiliul Concurenţei ( Romania): Security services; SGPI, TMG Guard, Ambassador Group, Team Force; Restrictive agreements—bid rigging; PR 06/05/2026; Raid 06/05/2026. European Commission: Chocolate confectionery; Unknown; Restrictive agreements and abuse of dominance; PR 13/04/2026; Raid Unknown. Commission for Protection of Competition ( Bulgaria): IT equipment; 2 unknown undertakings; Restrictive agreements—bid rigging; PR 01/04/2026; Raid 01/04/2026. Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato ( Italy): Meal vouchers and substitute canteen services; Edenred; Abuse of dominance; PR 26/03/2026; Raid 25/03/2026. Anti-monopoly Office ( Slovakia): Optical networks; 4 unknown...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED - this archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment dated 12 January 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline: Appeal brought against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 814/177, which substantively rejected an action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 2 October 2017. That decision found an abuse of Article 102 TFEU and imposed a €27,873,000 fine on AB Lietuvos geležinkeliai for dismantling a 19km-long section of railway line connecting Lithuania and Latvia ( AT.39813). Outcome On 12 January 2023, the Court of Justice delivered its ruling, dismissing the appeal in its entirety. In particular, the Court of Justice found, among other points, that: the General Court made no error in its appraisal of the abusive conduct; the contention that the track removal was not abusive rested on a...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED -this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 29 June 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court’s ruling in Case T‑515/18, which dismissed an action seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 14 June 2018. That decision, adopted under Article 7(2) of Regulation 773/2004, refused a complaint submitted by Fakro Sp. z o.o. against VKR Holding A/ S alleging abuse of a dominant position ( Case AT.39451). Outcome On 30 June 2022, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment and rejected the appeal in full. In particular, it held that the General Court did not err in finding no manifest error by the Commission when it evaluated the EU interest in pursuing further investigation as low and dismissed Fakro’s complaint on the basis of low...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED - this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 15 May 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline of the European Commission’s merger review into MOL Hungarian Oil and Gas Plc’s proposed purchase of OMV Slovenija. The deal gives rise to horizontal overlaps in the retail fuel supply market. Latest developments On 17 May 2023, the Commission granted unconditional clearance to the proposed transaction, albeit with conditions. It accepted MOL Hungarian Oil and Gas Plc’s commitment to divest 39 fuel stations in Slovenia to the Shell Group. Parties MOL Hungarian Oil and Gas Plc ( MOL): Based in Hungary, MOL is the parent of the MOL Group, an integrated oil and gas group active in exploring, producing and refining crude oil, and distributing refined oil products. At retail level, MOL Group operates around 2,000 fuel...
CASE HUB NOTE-appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 581/22 ARCHIVED - this archived case hub records the position as at the judgment of 22 June 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 11 June 2019 prohibiting the planned joint venture between Tata Steel and Thyssen Krupp AG ( Case M.8713). Latest development On 22 June 2022, the General Court delivered its ruling, dismissing the appeal in full. It held that: the Commission has a margin of discretion in conducting its economic assessments; in any event it clearly explained its reasoning and is not obliged to run every form of econometric test; technical feasibility is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for supply-side substitutability, and it rejected pleas concerning geographic market definition, the role of imports, and the...
Bosnia & Herzegovina FDI control 1. What is the applicable legislation? Bosnia and Herzegovina presently lacks an FDI screening regime akin to those developing across Europe under the EU FDI Screening Regulation. Rather than that model, it relies on more conventional authorisation frameworks, with particular attention on the defence and media fields. Owing to the country’s administrative set‑up, foreign investment, including in areas subject to special limitations, is regulated at several tiers: Bosnia and Herzegovina (state level)-the Foreign Direct Investments Policy Act ( Official Gazette of Bi H Nos. 4/1998, 17/1998, 13/2003, 48/2010 and 22/2015) provides the overarching policy and procedural framework for foreign investment and applies throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina (the FDI Policy Act) Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina ( FBi H) (entity level)-the FBi H Foreign Investments Act ( Official Gazette of FBi H, Nos. 61/2001, 50/2003 and 77/2015)...
A conversation with Danijel Stevanović, Partner, Nina Rašljanin, Associate, and Srdjana Petronijevic, Partner, on key issues in foreign direct investment ( FDI) control in North Macedonia 1. What is the applicable legislation? North Macedonia does not operate a foreign investment control framework mirroring those emerging across Europe under the EU FDI Screening Regulation. Instead, North Macedonia retains a classic, single-sector authorisation arrangement focused on the defence industry, akin to models typically set up in Europe during the latter half of the twentieth century. In addition, all direct investments by non-residents are subject to compulsory registration. Investments into North Macedonia (covering the defence-sector authorisation scheme and the mandatory registration of direct investments) are generally governed by the following: The Constitution of the Republic of North Macedonia; The Companies Act ( Official Gazette of RM, nos. 8/2004; 84/2005; 25/2007; 87/2008; 42/2010; 48/2010; 24/2011; 166/2012; 70/2013; 119/2013; 120/2013;...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED -this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 15 June 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases and commentary Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court challenging the European Commission’s 24 January 2022 decision fining Qualcomm for abusing a dominant position in the worldwide market for 4G Long‑ Term Evolution ( LTE) baseband chipsets by making substantial exclusivity payments to Apple on the basis that it would not obtain supplies from competitors ( Case AT.40220). Latest development On 15 June 2022, the General Court delivered its judgment, upholding the appeal in full. It found multiple procedural irregularities that impaired Qualcomm’s rights of defence and invalidated the Commission’s analysis of the conduct alleged against Qualcomm. Parties Appellant: Qualcomm, Inc ( Qualcomm): A US‑based business designing and marketing wireless...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment dated 14 June 2021 and is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline An appeal by Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly known as Facebook) against the CMA’s decision of 30 November 2021 preventing Meta’s completed purchase of Giphy, Inc. Latest development On 21 May 2021, the CAT delivered its judgment, rejecting the majority of the appeal while identifying some procedural errors by the CMA. The CAT has referred the question of any remedy to Meta and the CMA to consider. Parties Meta Platforms, Inc. ( Meta): Founded in 2002. Until 28 October 2021, it was known as ‘ Facebook’. It is the parent of a group providing a wide range of online products and services globally, including Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, Whats App, Oculus, Portal and...
P& O Ferries/ DFDS capacity sharing agreement ( Case 51099) [ Archived] CASE HUB ARCHIVED - this archive records the position as at the decision date of 5 August 2022; it is not being updated. See also the timeline. Case facts Outline An investigation under Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 ( CA98) into a capacity sharing agreement between P& O Ferries Holdings Limited and DFDS A/ S ( Case 51099). Latest developments On 5 August 2022, the CMA announced it would accept the parties’ proposed commitments, with an additional requirement that a monitoring trustee be appointed to supervise compliance with one of those commitments. Parties P& O Ferries Holdings Limited ( P& O Ferries) DFDS A/ S ( DFDS) Background In November 2021, the CMA opened an inquiry into the companies’ capacity sharing agreement under Chapter I of the CA98. In March 2022, the CMA chose to...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the situation as at the decision date of 23 October 2024 and is no longer being updated. NOTE Appeals have been brought before the General Court in Cases T-1/25 and T-2/25. See further: timeline. Case facts Outline Commission Article 101 TFEU probe into collusion between České dráhy and Österreichische Bundesbahnen intended to stop a newcomer competing in the rail passenger transport market ( AT.40401). Latest development On 23 October 2024, the Commission adopted its infringement decision and imposed penalties totalling €48.7m. Fines per company were: CD-€31.9m ÖBB-€16.7m (including a 45% leniency reduction) Parties České dráhy ( CD): CD is the principal rail operator in the......
1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in New Caledonia? New Caledonia, a French overseas territory with enhanced autonomy from mainland France under a special status, has operated its own merger control framework and competition rules since 2014, enforced by the Autorité de la concurrence de la Nouvelle- Calédonie ( ACNC). Despite being distinct, the two systems are closely aligned, and their competition authorities cooperate extensively. In practice, the ACNC frequently relies on the French Competition Authority ( FCA)’s merger guidelines and decisional practice when issuing decisions. Although New Caledonia is not part of the European Union ( EU)-it is one of the EU’s associated overseas countries and territories under Article 198 TFEU-the French merger control rules and decisional practice mirror those applied at EU...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment dated 18 May 2022; it is no longer updated. See also timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court aimed at setting aside the Commission decision of 5 February 2019 blocking Wieland’s acquisition of Aurubis Rolled Products and Schwermetall ( Case M.8900). Latest development On 18 May 2022, the General Court delivered its ruling and rejected the appeal in full. Parties Applicant: Wieland- Werke AG ( Wieland) - a German-headquartered manufacturer and supplier of semi-finished copper and copper alloy products. Wieland spans the copper value chain from casting forms through to the sale of semi-finished goods. It produces rolled copper and copper-alloy products in Germany, the UK, the US and Singapore. Defendant: European...
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
