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
Assessing how a merger affects rivalry requires evaluating the extent to which the parties are close and effective competitors of one another. The judgement should be forward-looking, asking how the competitive landscape may evolve over coming years and anticipating changes. Relevant considerations for that assessment include, among others: potential product obsolescence; the status and evolution of any pivotal technology; the firms’ resources; the firms’ indebtedness; and whether the activities at issue are central or peripheral to their businesses. At its most acute level, one of the firms may simply be unlikely to remain in operation on a sustained basis, for instance because of continuing financial losses and heavy debt, or because its core products or technology have become out of date or effectively obsolete. In those circumstances, the acquirer may contend that the target is not, or over the...
The creation of the Competition and Market Authority ( CMA) in 2013 The establishment of the Competition and Market Authority ( CMA) in 2013 coincided with an overhaul of a component of the criminal cartel offence that prosecutors had to prove to convict directors and officers. When the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 ( ERRA 2013) commenced on 1 April 2014, the dishonesty element of the cartel offence was scrapped, marking a radical change to what prosecutors had previously been required to establish. Under the revised regime, an individual commits the offence by agreeing, with one or more persons, that two or more undertakings will take part in specified prohibited cartel arrangements (price-fixing, market-sharing, bid-rigging, or limiting output), regardless of dishonesty. Any such arrangements must have occurred in the UK to be caught. As explained further below, this shift is partly offset by new...
1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Thai merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Thailand? Thailand’s merger control regime has seen a number of movements since it came into force in December 2018. As at November 2024, twelve transactions had triggered pre-merger submissions to the Trade Competition Commission ( TCC), with five being foreign-to-foreign matters (see Question 5 for additional detail). The latest prominent case concerns Bangchak Corporation Public Company Limited and Esso ( Thailand) Public Company, both active as petrol service station operators in the same market. The TCC cleared this deal on 18 July 2023 and imposed six remedial measures to curb market concentration arising from the acquisition. Another notable development is CP Group’s takeover of Tesco Lotus, approved by the TCC on 6...
1. What is the applicable legislation? The primary statute applicable to foreign direct investment ( FDI) is the Foreign Business Act B. E. 2542 ( A. D. 1999) (the FBA). The FBA regulates business activities undertaken by foreign individuals or entities in Thailand. Under the FBA, a “foreigner” is defined as: an individual who does not hold Thai nationality a juristic person not registered in Thailand a juristic person incorporated in Thailand where foreign ownership represents one-half or more of the total shares and/or registered capital a limited partnership or ordinary registered partnership whose managing shareholder or manager is a foreign national The FBA identifies business activities that foreign persons or entities are restricted from, or barred from, conducting in Thailand. These activities are grouped into three lists under the FBA: List 1: businesses that foreign nationals are...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 18 October 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline An appeal was brought challenging the Commission’s decision fining Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited and Cephalon Inc. a combined €60.5m for infringing Article 101 TFEU. The decision concerned a ‘pay delay’ arrangement under which Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited agreed, after the expiry of patents, not to introduce a cheaper generic of Cephalon Inc.’s medicine for sleep disorders, Modafinil, in exchange for cash payments and other incentives ( AT.39686). Latest development On 18 October 2023, the General Court delivered its judgment and dismissed the appeal in its entirety......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment of 10 July 2014 and is no longer being updated. For further detail, see: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline: An appeal was lodged against the General Court’s judgment dismissing Telefónica’s challenge to the Commission’s 2007 decision imposing a fine of around €151.9m for an alleged margin squeeze contrary to Article 102 TFEU. The Court of Justice handed down its judgment on 10 July 2014. The dispute centres on whether a ‘margin squeeze’ can be found without first establishing the indispensability of the wholesale input(s) concerned. Parties Appellants: Telefónica SA Telefónica de España SAU Other Parties: European Commission France Telecom España SA Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios European Competitive Telecommunications...
Cases T- 43/16, T- 884/16, and T- 885/16 1&1 Telecom v Commission et al—third party appeals against remedy implementation in Telefónica Deutschland/ E- Plus [ Archived] CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 9 October 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Third-party merger challenges targeting the manner in which remedies were executed following the conditional authorisation in Telefónica Deutschland/ E‑ Plus ( M.7018). The applicants asked for the annulment of specific Commission measures concerning the implementation of the commitments offered in Telefónica Deutschland/ E‑ Plus or, in the alternative, for the annulment of the clearance decision itself... Latest development On 9 October 2018, the General Court delivered its judgments and rejected actions by 1&1 Telecom, Multiconnect and Mass Response Service directed at the...
1. What is the applicable legislation? Investment into Taiwan is categorised as either non‑ PRC foreign investment or PRC investment. The Statute for Investment by Foreign Nationals 1960 ( SIFN), most recently revised on 19 November 1997, governs foreign investment in Taiwan, setting out restrictions as well as protections and administrative rules. PRC investors face tighter controls than other foreign investors in practice. Key instruments applicable to PRC investment are the Act Governing Relations between the Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area 1992 and the Measures on Investment Permits for People of the Mainland Area 2009 ( MIPPM). Under Article 3 of the MIPPM, a PRC investor means a PRC natural person, legal person, organisation, other institution, or their third‑area company. A third‑area company is treated as a PRC investor if 30% of its equity is owned or...
This table sets out every concluded probe by Switzerland’s competition watchdog (the Competition Commission—the COMCO) into suspected cartels, anti-competitive arrangements and abuses of dominance since 2018. Only investigations placed in the public domain appear here. 2026 Investigations under Article 5 of the Cartel Act 1995 No Article 5 decisions have been handed down by COMCO in 2026. Investigations under Article 7 of the Cartel Act 1995 Big rock and pop concerts — Ticketcorner; Aktiengesellschaft Hallenstadion Zürich Issue: Concern that Ticketcorner and Aktiengesellschaft Hallenstadion Zürich exploited a dominant position via a 2008 arrangement requiring at least 50 per cent of tickets to be sold through Ticketcorner for the arena to be rented to organisers. Development: Infringement decision announced—22/01/2026; fines totalling CHF 115,000 imposed. 2025...
Note— To check whether notification thresholds in Sweden and worldwide are reached, see: Where to Notify. 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 Sweden? Sweden’s merger control framework sits within the Swedish Competition Act ( Competition Act). Since 2018, when the Swedish Competition Authority ( SCA) was empowered to block transactions and approve them with conditions, no amendments have entered into force. That said, proposals are on the table to adjust the regime. One suggestion would allow the SCA to require businesses to notify intended mergers that currently fall outside the Act’s mandatory filing rules. At present, notification is required where the parties’ combined Swedish turnover exceeds SEK 1bn and at least two parties each generate over SEK 200m in Sweden. The SCA may...
This table outlines all concluded inquiries by Sweden’s competition authority (the Swedish Competition Authority— SCA) into suspected cartels, anti‑competitive arrangements and abuse of dominance ( Articles 101/102 TFEU and national counterparts) since 2018. Only matters that have been publicly disclosed are included... 2025 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter 2, Section 1 of the Competition Act Digital healthcare services Doktor.se Min Doktor SEK Doktor24 Kry Issues: Restrictive agreements Developments: Infringement decision announced—03/04/2025; fines totalling SEK 26m imposed Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/ Chapter 2, Section 7 of the Competition Act The Swedish Competition Authority has not yet issued any decisions under Article 102 TFEU/ Chapter 2, Section 7 2024 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter 2, Section 1 of the Competition Act The Swedish Competition Authority did not issue any decisions under Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter 2, Section 1 in...
On 1 June 2023, the European Commission ( Commission) unveiled its revised Horizontal Guidelines (the Guidelines). As foreshadowed in last year’s consultation draft of the horizontal regime, the Guidelines set out rules that apply to sustainability arrangements concluded between competitors. Although environmental agreements appeared in the 2001 horizontal guidelines, they were taken out of the 2010 edition. Their (re)appearance within the Commission’s antitrust framework therefore marks a significant clarification of the relationship between sustainability and EU competition law. On 10 January 2023, the Commission likewise issued draft guidelines on a novel exclusion removing sustainability agreements in the food and agriculture sphere from the scope of Article 101(1) TFEU. This alignment is consistent with the Commission’s ambitious plan against climate change, packaged within a number of initiatives under the European Green Deal. Rather than mapping out a route for the Commission to back...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED— This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment of 29 June 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, the timeline. Case facts Outline A national reference from Spain, a national reference from Spain, seeks guidance on how decisions of competition authorities, deeming some of the applicant’s supply agreements unlawful, are binding on national judges......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment dated 6 October 2021; it is no longer being updated. See further, timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C-882/19, Sumal, SL v Mercedes Benz Trucks España, S. L — a Spanish reference seeking clarification on whether liability for anti-trust damages can be passed down from the parent company to a subsidiary. Latest developments On 6 October 2021, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, indicating that a victim of an infringement of EU competition law by a parent company may claim compensation from that company’s subsidiary for the loss suffered. For this to apply, the Court of Justice stated the victim must establish that, at the time of the infringement, the two companies formed a single economic unit. Parties Applicant: Sumal, SL ( Sumal) Respondent: Mercedes Benz Trucks España, S. L. ( MB...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment dated 12 March 2020; it is no longer updated. See also: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Proceedings were instituted by the Commission against Italy for failing to comply with the Court of Justice’s 2012 judgment in Case C-243/10, which confirmed a Commission decision that State aid had been unlawfully granted to the hotel sector in Sardinia ( SA.14895). Latest developments On 12 March 2020, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment, finding that Italy failed to fulfil its obligations to implement the 2012 judgment by not adopting, within the deadline set by the Commission, the measures required to recover the aid concerned in full. Parties Appellant: European Commission (the Commission) Respondent: ...
1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the merger control regime in Sri Lanka and are any updates or developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Sri Lanka? NOTE—to check whether notification thresholds in Sri Lanka and worldwide are satisfied, please refer to: Where to Notify. Sri Lanka currently has no statute that specifically governs merger control. Instead, the provisions on anti-competitive conduct in the Consumer Affairs Authority Act No 9 of 2003 (the Consumer Affairs Authority Act) are relevant to merger assessment. As a result, there is no compulsory merger notification or clearance system, and no standstill obligation, in Sri Lanka. A merger will only be examined under the Consumer Affairs Authority Act where it amounts to the existence of an ‘anti-competitive practice’ within the meaning of that Act. For the purposes of the...
1. What is the applicable legislation? Sri Lanka promotes FDI and, aside from a few exclusions, remains broadly open. The principal legal regime for investing into Sri Lanka is the Foreign Exchange Act No. 12 of 2017 ( FEA) together with its Regulations. The Board of Investment of Sri Lanka ( BOI) serves as the country’s investment facilitator and operates under the Board of Investment Law No. 4 of 1978 ( BOI Law). Investments in the newest Special Economic Zone—the Colombo Port City ( SEZ)—are governed by the Colombo Port City Economic Commission Act No. 11 of 2021 ( CPCEC Act) and related Regulations, including the Foreign Exchange ( Investments in Colombo Port City) Regulations No. 1 of 2022. Other investment-facilitating laws include: Strategic Development Projects Act, No. 14 of 2008 ( SDP Act), with its Regulations The Finance Act –...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this case hub sets out the position as at the decision dated 19 September 2025; it is no longer maintained. NOTE—appeal lodged with the CAT in 1753/4/12/25. See the timeline and commentary for details. Case facts Outline UK remittal examining the CMA’s decision on the completed purchase by Spreadex Limited of the B2C operations of Sporting Index Limited. The deal presents horizontal overlaps concerning the supply of licensed online sports spread betting services in the UK. Latest developments On 5 June 2025, the CMA issued its final report, concluding that the merger has given rise to, or could be expected to give rise to, an SLC in the provision of licensed online sports betting services in the UK. Regarding remedies, the CMA determined that divestiture is the sole effective and proportionate solution to remedy the SLC in the UK online sports spread betting market. The CMA will...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 21 February 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline An Article 101 TFEU inquiry by the European Commission examined a cartel concerning the supply of spark plugs to vehicle manufacturers within the EEA ( AT.40113). The conduct comprised sharing information, manipulating tenders, dividing customers, and respecting historic supply rights. Latest development On 21 February 2018, following settlements by the three producers with the Commission, which included admitting participation in the cartel, the Commission adopted its infringement decision. Aggregate penalties amounting to €76m were imposed. The penalties by manufacturer were: Denso – €0 (owing to immunity) Bosch – €45,834,000 (inclusive of a 28% reduction for leniency)......
This table outlines all concluded investigations by Spain’s competition authority (the National Commission on Markets and Competition—the CNMC) into alleged cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominance ( Articles 101/102 TFEU and national equivalents) since 2018. Note—only investigations made public are included. 2026 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/ Article 1 of the Spanish Competition Act Case name, companies under investigation and industry: Professional hairdressing products • I. C. O. N Issues: Restrictive agreements—price fixing Developments: Infringement decision issued—12/01/2026; fines totalling €1.2m imposed Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/ Article 2 of the Spanish Competition Act Case name, companies under investigation and industry: Automotive fuels • Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos • Solred • Campsa Estaciones de Servicio Issues: Concerns the Repsol Group abused its dominant position through its pricing policy that squeezed the margins of independent low-cost petrol stations ...
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
