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 as at the decision date of 17 July 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline CMA Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I CA98 investigation alleging that GAK and YME infringed UK and EU competition law by agreeing that GAK would not reduce the online price of certain Yamaha musical instruments below a set minimum ( Case 50565–6). Latest developments On 17 July 2020, the CMA issued an infringement decision finding that GAK and YME engaged in RPM contrary to UK and/or EU competition law. The CMA levied a £278,945 penalty on GAK (including a 20% settlement reduction). YME obtained full immunity for revealing the anti-competitive behaviour. Parties GAK.co.uk Ltd, The Guitar, Amp & Keyboard Centre Ltd and GAK.co.uk ( Holdings Limited (together GAK): a UK company based in...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeals lodged before the CMA in Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited & Others v CMA (1414/1/12/21), Allergan plc v CMA (1407/1/12/21), Auden Mckenzie ( Pharma) Limited & Another v CMA (1413/1/12/21), Cinven ( Luxco 1) S.a.r.l (formerly Cinven ( Luxco 1) S. A.) & Others v CMA (1412/1/12/21) and Advanz Pharma Corp v CMA (1411/1/12/21) ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 15 July 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline The CMA undertook a Chapter I and Chapter II investigation into suspected anti-competitive arrangements and abuses of dominance that encouraged postponed market entry and resulted in excessive and unfair pricing for hydrocortisone tablets (50277). Latest developments On 15 July 2021, the CMA issued an infringement decision, finding that: (i) Auden Mckenzie and Actavis UK abused a dominant position by...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the decision date of 23 March 2022; it is no longer updated. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline: A Chapter I CA98 probe alleged that Dar infringed UK competition rules by curbing retailers’ ability to discount the online prices of domestic lighting products it supplied. Latest development On 23 March 2022, the CMA confirmed a settlement. It levied total penalties of £1.5m on Dar and its parent, Castlegate 624, incorporating a 20% reduction for settlement and a 35% uplift for failing to take adequate steps after two CMA warning letters and for intentionally breaching competition law. Parties Dar Lighting Limited ( Dar): Där is a prominent UK designer and distributor of domestic lighting products. Castlegate 624 Ltd ( Castlegate 624): Dar’s parent...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub shows the position as at the decision date of 22 November 2024 and is no longer being updated. See the timeline for more. Case facts Outline UK merger review of the completed purchase by Spreadex Limited of the B2C arm of Sporting Index Limited. The deal features horizontal overlap in the provision of licensed online sports spread betting services in the UK. Latest developments On 22 November 2024, the CMA published its final report, concluding that the deal raises competition concerns in the supply of licensed online sports spread betting services in the UK. In particular, the CMA determined that the transaction: (i) creates a monopoly in the UK licensed online sports spread betting market, removing competition in that market; (ii) may result in a poorer user experience, a narrower product range and/or higher prices for consumers in the UK. As to...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision dated 22 January 2020 and is no longer updated. See also: timeline, commentary and related cases... Case facts Outline CMA Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I CA98 investigation into allegations that Fender infringed UK and EU competition rules by curbing online discounting of its guitars... Latest developments On 22 January 2020, the CMA issued an infringement decision, concluding that Fender violated the Chapter I prohibition/ Article 101 TFEU by operating resale price maintenance, requiring sales of its guitars at or above a set minimum price. This was intended to prevent retailers from offering online discounts. The CMA levied a £4.5m penalty, reduced for leniency and settlement, after Fender admitted breaking the law... Parties Fender Musical Instruments Europe Limited ( Fender Europe), a UK-based supplier of guitars to UK retailers. Fender Europe is a...
CASE HUB ( Appeals lodged at the Competition Appeal Tribunal–see Glaxo Smith Kline and other v CMA (paroxetine)) ARCHIVED – this case hub records the position as at the 12 February 2016 decision and is no longer being maintained. For more detail, please consult the timeline, commentary, and related cases. Case facts overview: CMA investigation under Articles 101 and 102 TFEU/ Chapters I and II into Glaxo Smith Kline and generic manufacturers about pay-for-delay arrangements concerning anti-depressant medicines, specifically paroxetine ( Case CE/9531-11)......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision of 8 March 2022; it is no longer being maintained. For further information, see the timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline An inquiry under CA98 Chapters I and II by the CMA into alleged infringements of competition law, relating to long‑term exclusivity in the provision of electric vehicle chargepoints located on or close to motorways. Latest developments On 8 March 2022, the CMA confirmed it would accept undertakings from Gridserve. Those undertakings include the following: ceasing enforcement of exclusive rights in agreements with Extra, MOTO or Roadchef after November 2026, which at present cover about two‑thirds of motorway service areas in the UK as a whole. This means Gridserve will cut the exclusivity duration in its current contracts with MOTO by roughly 2 years and with Roadchef by roughly 4 years (the Extra contract is...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 12 August 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline A CMA Chapter I CA98 inquiry into collusion in the UK market for the online sale of posters and frames ( Case 50223). The conduct comprised an accord between competitors not to undercut each other’s prices for posters and frames offered on Amazon’s UK site. Latest developments On 1 December 2016, the CMA stated it had disqualified the director of Trod Ltd, the firm found to have breached competition law for its role in a cartel concerning the online sale of posters and frames. Daniel Aston, managing director of Trod Ltd, has provided a disqualification undertaking not to serve as a director of any UK company for five...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived hub sets out the position as at the date of the penalty notice on 18 September 2019; it is no longer being updated. Please see also the timeline and commentary for further reference. Case facts Outline UK merger investigation into Pay Pal Holdings, Inc.’s completed purchase of i Zettle AB. The deal features horizontal overlaps in the provision of mobile point-of-sale devices across the UK market nationally. The CMA also flagged possible issues in relation to ‘omni-channel’ payment solutions and services. Latest developments On 18 September 2019, the CMA served Pay Pal with a penalty notice for breaching the initial enforcement order ( IEO) set by the CMA at that time. A fine totalling £250,000 was levied. Pay Pal had requested, and obtained, a derogation from the IEO allowing it to undertake international integration steps, including running...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub captures the position as at the decision date of 3 November 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline Case facts Outline CMA Chapter II CA98 investigation into whether Meta is exploiting a dominant position in social media or digital advertising through its gathering and use of advertising and single sign-on data. Latest developments On 20 August 2024, the CMA confirmed it had accepted a variation to the commitments previously accepted in November 2023. This change introduces an option to exclude certain ad data from all advertisers from being used by Meta in Facebook Marketplace. Under this approach, advertisers would still be able to place ads on Facebook Marketplace. Parties Meta Platforms Inc ( Meta): A US-based technology conglomerate providing a range of online products and services to UK users, including Facebook, Instagram, and Whats...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the date of the decision on 16 September 2015 to close the investigation; it is no longer being maintained or updated. For further detail, please see the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline CMA Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I inquiry into the hotel online booking sector. The matter was reopened following the CAT’s judgment in the Skyscanner v CMA case. Latest developments On 20 August 2020, the CMA provided an update on its project tracking pricing behaviour by online travel agents, following the lapse of the 2015 commitments by Booking.com and Expedia not to apply ‘wide’ parity clauses in online hotel booking agreements. In summary, after the formal commitments expired on 1 July 2020, both companies stated they would continue to operate in line with those commitments going forward. Both companies have also...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 17 December 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline CMA investigation under Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I into suspected price-fixing in the market for groundworks products supplied to the construction sector. Latest developments On 17 December 2020, the CMA handed down an infringement decision concluding that Vp plc, MGF ( Trench Construction Systems) Ltd, and Mabey Hire Ltd broke the Chapter I prohibition and Article 101 TFEU by: (i) exchanging confidential information about future pricing and commercial strategy; and (ii) aligning aspects of their commercial conduct to lessen uncertainty. The CMA levied penalties totalling £14.9m on Vp plc and MGF ( Trench Construction Systems) Ltd. Mabey Hire Ltd was not fined, having been granted immunity under the CMA’s Leniency...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 25 October 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Summary of a CMA Chapter I investigation into limits on car parking charges embedded in a hotel lease between Heathrow Airport and Arora. Latest developments On 25 October 2018, the CMA issued its infringement ruling. Heathrow Airport Limited, together with its parent Heathrow Airport Holdings Limited, was fined £1.6m, which included a 20% discount for settling. Heathrow T5 Limited and its parent, Arora Holdings Limited, were granted immunity and therefore received no fine. The CMA also sent warning letters to other airports and hotel operators, cautioning against similar anti-competitive arrangements. The CAA, which assisted the CMA in its investigation, has......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub sets out the position as at 16 December 2016; it is no longer updated. See the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline CMA investigation under Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I CA98 into suspected anti-competitive conduct in the UK modelling sector, involving exchanges of confidential, sensitive information and, in some cases, alignment on pricing approaches (case CE/9859-14). Latest developments On 16 December 2016, the CMA handed down an infringement decision against five model agencies— FM Models, Models 1, Premier, Storm and Viva—and their trade association, the AMA, for operating a cartel in the market for modelling services. Total penalties exceeded £1.5m, apportioned as: FM Models – £251,000 Models 1 – £394,000 Premier – £150,000 Storm – £491,000 Viva – £245,000 AMA – £2,500 Parties FM Model Agency Limited (‘ FM Models’), a model agency based in London. Models One Limited, One Worldwide Limited and Models 1 New Co...
The Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA) serves as the UK’s principal competition regulator, tasked with probing suspected anti-competitive conduct that could affect the UK. Its Guidance on investigation procedure in Competition Act 1998 matters ( CMA8) (the Guidance) outlines how the CMA applies its powers and the processes it follows. Brexit As to substantive rules, the UK reflects the EU framework in Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, and both regimes are expected to stay closely aligned for a time, even after the transition period concluded on 31 December 2020. Procedurally, the UK rules in the Competition Act 1998 ( CA 1998) resemble EU law but include notable distinctions. Up to the close of the transition, section 60 CA 1998 required UK law to track, where feasible, EU competition principles and jurisprudence. That consistency obligation covered both substance and procedure. EU procedural...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision dated 4 March 2020; it is no longer kept up to date. NOTE—appeals were filed with the CAT in Lexon ( UK) Limited v CMA (1344/1/12/20) and Amit Patel v CMA (1348/2/12/20). See further, timeline, commentary and related cases... Case facts Outline CMA Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I investigation into Alissa Healthcare Research, Auden Mckenzie, Accord- UK, King Pharmaceuticals, Praze Consultants and Lexon regarding an infringement of competition law relating to the supply of the antidepressant Nortriptyline... Latest developments On 11 January 2022, the CMA stated it had obtained a legally binding director disqualification undertaking from Mr Pritesh Sonpal, formerly of Lexon. Mr Sonpal has undertaken not to serve as a director of any UK company for four years... Parties Alissa Healthcare Research Limited ( Alisa). Alissa focuses on licencing, marketing and...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the decision of 8 October 2021; it is no longer maintained. See the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline CMA Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I probe into AMCo (now Advanz Pharma Services ( UK) Limited), Morningside Healthcare Limited, Morningside Pharmaceuticals Limited and Alliance Healthcare ( Distribution) Limited concerning an alleged breach of competition rules linked to the supply of the antibiotic Nitrofurantoin. Latest developments On 8 October 2021, the CMA stated it had closed the investigation on the basis of administrative priorities. Parties Advanz Pharma Services ( UK) Limited ( Advanz): Advanz is a wholly owned subsidiary of Mercury Pharma Group Limited, incorporated in the UK. It primarily provides support services for the group headed by Concordia International Corp. (formerly Concordia Healthcare Corp). Mercury Pharma Group Limited ( Mercury): Mercury is a wholly owned subsidiary of...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the date the investigation was cancelled on 19 December 2023; it is now no longer being maintained or updated further at all. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline UK merger inquiry into the anticipated acquisition of Figma, Inc by Adobe Inc. The deal presents horizontal overlaps in relation to the provision of screen design software. Latest developments On 19 December 2023, the CMA formally cancelled its phase 2 probe after both parties chose to abandon entirely the proposed transaction. Parties Adobe Inc ( Adobe): Adobe is a US business headquartered in San Jose. It is a major provider of creative design software. Such software is used to produce media assets including photos, illustrations, video, and animations. Various categories of creative design software include vector editing for logos, icons, etc; raster editing for photographs and other...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 9 September 2014; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Overview of an OFT Chapter II and Article 102 TFEU investigation into Epyx Limited ( Epyx) regarding its conduct in the UK market for supplying service, maintenance and repair ( SMR) platforms. In the UK, Epyx operates the 1link Service Network SMR platform. Latest developments On 9 September 2014, the CMA confirmed it had accepted commitments from Epyx. These undertakings remove, and in some cases amend, potentially restrictive provisions in Epyx’s agreements for use of the 1link Service Network, creating clearer opportunities for rival entry, notably by making it easier for Epyx’s existing customers to move to competitors if they wish. The commitments will apply for five years. On 4 June 2014, the CMA announced it was...
ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out position as at the decision date of 3 November 2023; it is no longer maintained and will not be updated going forwards or revised. CASE HUB See further, timeline Case facts Outline The CMA’s Chapter II CA98 inquiry assessed whether Amazon exploited a dominant position, including the potential use of confidential third‑party seller data within Amazon’s retail operations, the parameters Amazon applies when determining which offer appears in the ‘ Buy Box’, and which merchants may list items under Amazon’s ‘ Prime label’ on its UK Marketplace. Latest developments On 3 November 2023, the CMA stated it would accept commitments from Amazon to remedy its competition concerns......
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
