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 records the position as at the decision of 27 March 2017 and is no longer maintained. For further details, see the timeline. Case facts Outline: CMA investigation under Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I into two cartels in the furniture sector, involving market sharing, price-fixing, bid‑rigging, and the exchange of commercially sensitive information (case CE/9882-16). Latest developments On 27 March 2017, the CMA issued infringement decisions and imposed fines totalling more than £2.8m. The fines were: BHK ( UK) Ltd – no fine after being granted immunity Thomas Armstrong ( Timber) Ltd and its parent, Thomas Armstrong ( Holdings) Ltd – £1,509,000 for the drawer wraps cartel and £684,000 for the drawer fronts cartel (both including 20% reductions under the CMA settlement process) Hoffman Thornwood Ltd and its parent, Consolidated Timber Holdings Ltd – £625,000 for the drawer fronts cartel...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 10 January 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary Case facts Outline An appeal brought by Tobii AB (publ) challenging the Competition and Markets Authority’s 15 August 2019 decision, which blocked Tobii AB (publ)’s completed purchase of Smartbox Assistive Technology Limited and Sensory Software International Limited (together, Smartbox) and required full divestment of Smartbox (i.e. unwinding the deal). Latest development On 17 February 2020, the CAT handed down a ruling on consequential issues, including permission to appeal (refused) and costs. Parties Tobii AB (publ) ( Tobii): Tobii is a Swedish high‑tech firm that designs and provides products and assistive technology for communication, as well as eye control and tracking. Competition and Markets Authority (...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 8 August 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeals were brought by Hg Capital, Cinven and Mercury Pharmaceuticals (among others) contesting the CMA’s Chapter II finding on excessive and unfair pricing of liothyronine tablets, which identified an abuse of dominance and levied penalties exceeding £101.4m. Latest development On 8 August 2023, the CAT handed down its judgment: (i) it rejected the appellants’ challenges to the CMA’s decision; however, (ii) it cut Cinven’s penalty from £51.9m to £37.1m and Hg Capital’s from £8.6m to £6.2m. Parties Appellants: HG Capital LLP ( Hg Capital) Cinven ( Luxco 1) S.a.r.l. and others ( Cinven) Mercury Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Advanz Pharma Services ( UK) Ltd and others ( Advanz Pharma—formerly trading as...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 7 June 2018 and is no longer maintained. Note — on 20 December 2018, the Court of Appeal granted the CMA permission to appeal the CAT’s judgment of 7 June 2018. See the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Flynn Pharma Limited and Flynn Pharma ( Holdings) Limited v CMA (1275/1/12/17), and Pfizer Inc. and Pfizer Limited (1276/1/12/17) — appeals before the CAT concerning the CMA’s decision of 12 February 2016 in Case CE‑9742‑13 regarding phenytoin sodium capsules. Latest development On 25 July 2018, the CAT ruled that: (i) both Flynn and Pfizer were refused permission to appeal the CAT’s 7 June 2018 judgment; (ii) the question of abuse was remitted to the CMA for reconsideration consistent with that judgment; and (iii) the remittal should proceed...
This database details how the CMA (and the former OFT) have calculated fines imposed for cartels that have Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 (or Article 101 TFEU prior to Brexit) under the current fining guidelines. Refer to a database outlining how the European Commission calculated fines levied on undertakings found......
Note—this guide is being updated to reflect the Competition Regulations, 2025, introducing the long‑awaited framework to operationalise the Competition Act. NOTE—to check if notification thresholds in France and globally are met, see: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Ugandan merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Uganda? The Competition Act 5 of 2024 ( Act) was assented to by the President on 2 February 2024 and commenced on 19 April 2024. It covers anti-competitive conduct, restrictive agreements, abuse of dominance, and the competitive effects of mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures. The Minister of Trade, Industry and Cooperatives had six months from commencement to table competition regulations in Parliament. These were not issued by the 21 October 2024 deadline and, to date, remain...
1. What is the applicable legislation? Federal Law 32/2021 on Commercial Companies ( Companies Law 2021) is the primary statute regulating the United Arab Emirates ( UAE) foreign direct investment framework. Issued at the close of 2021, it formed part of wider federal reforms designed to modernise the UAE’s legal landscape across multiple fields and to attract overseas capital. The Companies Law 2021 superseded both Federal Law 2/2015 on Commercial Companies (the Old Companies Law 2015) and Federal Law 19/2018 on Foreign Direct Investment. Traditionally, UAE legislation mandated that UAE nationals hold a majority interest in all onshore UAE companies, with foreign ownership limited to 49%. From 27 September 2020, Federal Decree 26/2020 amended the Old Companies Law 2015, permitting up to 100% foreign ownership of onshore entities in defined circumstances. Taking effect on 2 January 2022, the Companies Law 2021, which replaced the Old...
This Practice Note explains the turnover (revenue) details required for a multi‑jurisdictional merger control review to pinpoint the jurisdictions where relevant filing thresholds are satisfied, and thus where merger control notifications and approvals are needed. Preliminary comments A few observations on the approach adopted in this note: For a deal to be notifiable in any given jurisdiction, it must not only satisfy the applicable thresholds but also qualify as a notifiable event under that jurisdiction’s rules. This note is limited to identifying the information necessary for an initial check of where thresholds are met—it does not consider the rules that define which transactions amount to a notifiable event. Broadly, in most jurisdictions (notably the EU), mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures are only notifiable if they result in a lasting shift in ‘control’ of the undertakings involved (for the concept of ‘control’, see further, EU merger...
Note—for guidance on whether filing thresholds in Turkiye and worldwide are satisfied, please see: Where to Notify for details. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Turkish merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Turkiye? The Turkish Competition Authority ( Authority) has brought in substantial revisions to the regime governing deals that require the Turkish Competition Board’s ( Board) clearance. These notable amendments recently took effect through Communiqué No. 2026/2, which formally modifies Communiqué 2010/4 on Mergers and Acquisitions Requiring the Approval of the Competition Board, as published in the Official Gazette on 11 February 2026 ( Amended Communique 2010/4). Under the Amended Communique 2010/4, the jurisdictional thresholds have been materially updated. In particular, the Turkish turnover threshold previously at TL 250m (approx. €5.6m/ US$6.3m) now stands at TL 1bn...
This overview captures all finalised investigations by Türkiye’s competition authority (the Turkish Competition Authority— TCA) into suspected cartels, anti-competitive arrangements and abuses of dominance since 2018. Note—only matters that have entered the public domain are reflected here. 2026 Investigations under Article 4 of Law No. 4054 Seeds ANTALYA TARIM; GAUTIER; METGEN; AD ROSSEN IN LIQUIDATION Issue: Restrictive agreements—information sharing Development: Infringement decision on 08/04/2026; fines totalling TRY 49,048,337.02 Investigations under Article 6 of Law No. 4054 Chlorine production Koruma Klor Alkali Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ Issue: Alleged abuse of dominance via predatory pricing Development:...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 1 February 2024; it is no longer being actively maintained. See the timeline. Case facts Outline Appeals were brought against the General Court’s judgment in Case T-691/14, which partly upheld an action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision imposing a fine on Scania for an alleged cartel in the market for medium-duty trucks ( AT.39824). Outcome On 1 February 2024, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, dismissing the appeal in its entirety......
Trinidad & Tobago merger control Prepared in collaboration with M. Glenn Hamel- Smith, Partner, and Jeanelle Pran, Senior Associate, of Trinidad & Tobago firm M. Hamel- Smith & Co, summarising key issues on merger control in Trinidad & Tobago. Note—to check whether notification thresholds in Trinidad & Tobago and worldwide are triggered, see: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Trinidad & Tobago merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Trinidad & Tobago? There have been no changes to the Fair Trading Act 2006 ( FTA) but we have (informally) been advised that the Trinidad & Tobago Fair Trading Commission (the Commission) intends to advance the following amendments to the FTA: raising the asset...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This case hub is archived and sets out the position as at the judgment date of 30 September 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline An appeal was lodged with the General Court asking for the annulment of the Commission decision of 28 November 2014, which dismissed a complaint by Trajektna (the private company running the passenger ferry terminal at the Port of Split). The complaint alleged a breach of Article 102 TFEU by the Split Port Authority, arising from caps on fees which, according to Trajektna, are inequitable and discriminatory and constitute an abuse of the Split Port Authority’s dominant position as the Port of Split’s operator. The Commission declined the complaint mainly because the prospect of proving an infringement was modest, and, in any event, the Croatian national courts and...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 16 March 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline An application by a national court in France, requesting clarification on the scope and applicability of Article 102 TFEU to a merger, which lacks an EU dimension, does not satisfy the thresholds triggering compulsory ex ante control under national law, and has not prompted a referral to the Commission pursuant to Article 22 EUMR. Latest developments On 16 March 2023, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment, addressing the issue raised in these terms: Article 21(1) EUMR does not prevent a concentration between undertakings from being assessed by a competition authority of a Member State under Article 102 TFEU, by reference to the structure of competition on a market of national scope, where the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this case hub captures the position as at the judgment dated 11 January 2017; it is no longer updated. See also: timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline An appeal was brought before the General Court seeking to annul the Commission decision of 15 July 2014 rejecting a complaint by Topps Europe (a maker of football collectibles). Topps alleged that FIFA, UEFA and four national football federations licensed their rights for the World Cup and Euro football tournaments to Panini Sp A (a Topps competitor) in an anti-competitive manner, contrary to Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. The Commission declined to open an in-depth investigation, relying on its enforcement priorities and its view that there was only a limited prospect of establishing an infringement. The case concerns the Commission’s process and the breadth of its discretion when handling competition law...
1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Togolese merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Togo? Competition in Togo is governed by Law No 99-011 of 28 December 1999 on the organisation of competition in Togo (the Competition Law), which omits any merger control rules. The Directorate of Domestic Trade and Competition ( DCIC) serves as the country’s central administrative competition authority under the Minister of Commerce. As a member of the West African Economic and Monetary Union ( Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine) ( WAEMU), Togo is bound by WAEMU competition rules as set out in Directive 02/2002/ CM/ UEMOA (the WAEMU Regulations). WAEMU holds sole and exclusive competence for merger control throughout its member states. National bodies may lawfully oversee competition within the domestic market, flag...
CASE HUB ( Appeal lodged by Timab before the Court of Justice in Case C- 411/15 P) ARCHIVED – this case hub, now archived, captures the position as at the judgment of 20 May 2015; it is no longer being maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/similar cases. Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court seeking to have the decision annulled, or to secure a significant cut in the fine, arising from the Commission’s decision of 20 July 2010. That decision recorded infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and imposed a €59.85m fine, for which CFPR and its subsidiary Timab were held jointly and severally liable, on account of the latter’s alleged role in a cartel on the European animal feed phosphates market (‘ Animal feed phosphates cartel’). On 20 May 2015, the General Court dismissed the action in full and...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub sets out the position as at 8 May 2015, the date of the decision; it is no longer updated. See also the timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline of a CMA Chapter I investigation into the Three Counties Estate Agents Association, three estate agents belonging to the association (and their parent companies) and Trinity Mirror Southern Ltd (and its parent company), owner and publisher of the local newspaper, for entering into agreements intended to limit how association members publicise their fees or discounts ( Case CE/9827/13). The CMA issued its enforcement decision and imposed fines totalling over £735,000 on 08/05/2015. Parties Three Counties Estate Agents Limited, trading as Three Counties Estate Agents Association Waterfords ( Estate Agents) Ltd Castles Property Services Ltd Hamptons Estates Ltd (trading as Hamptons International) and its ultimate parent companies Countrywide plc and Countrywide Group...
NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in the Netherlands and across the globe are met, see further: Where to Notify 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Dutch merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues with the ACM? Media Following the Authority for Consumers and Market’s ( ACM) prohibition of RTL’s proposed purchase of Talpa (two players in the Dutch television media market) on 30 January 2023, DPG Media announced plans to acquire RTL and filed the deal with the ACM. On 17 May 2024, the ACM concluded that the transaction merited deeper scrutiny and therefore referred the matter to the second (‘licence’) phase. On 18 July 2024, the parties submitted their application for the requisite licence. On 27 June 2025, the ACM issued conditional clearance for the merger in its DPG/ RTL...
NOTE—to check whether notification thresholds in the Gambia and worldwide are satisfied, see: Where to Notify 1. Have there been recent developments regarding the Gambian merger control regime. What are the main points of interest and are any further updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in the Gambia? Since the introduction of the Competition Act 2007, the Information Communication Act 2009 ( ICA 2009) and the Gambia Public Utilities Regulatory Authority Enforcement Regulations 2009, no new measures or rules have been issued, and none are expected. The ICA 2009 has been amended by the Information and Communication ( Amendment) Act, 2022, but the merger framework remains intact. The provisions relevant to mergers are ss 46–58, which deal with fair competition, and these were not changed. Only ss 138A, 165, 173A, 232, 235 and 236 were amended....
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
