Featured documents
This Practice Note outlines the law concerning criminal recklessness. The subjective test for recklessness Certain statutory and common law offences allow the prosecution to prove mens rea through ‘recklessness’. Put simply, recklessness is where the accused takes an unjustified risk that results in unlawful harm or damage. The House of Lords in R v G reaffirmed the subjective approach to recklessness. Before R v G, two distinct tests were used, depending on the offence charged: Subjective recklessness from R v Cunningham: the prosecution had to establish that the accused personally foresaw the risk. Objective recklessness from R v Caldwell: the prosecution only needed to show that the risk would have been obvious to a reasonable person, without proving the accused themselves foresaw it. In R v G, the House of Lords concluded that the objective test could operate unfairly where a defendant did not foresee the
This Practice Note examines the remedy of rescission, explaining when and in what manner a contract can be unwound (at common law, in equity and under statute) and thereby terminated and brought to an end. It covers the consequences and effects of rescission, the principal grounds for setting aside an agreement (misrepresentation, mistake, undue influence, duress, non‑disclosure, fiduciary misdealing and bribery) and the main obstacles to claiming rescission—affirmation, the intervention of third‑party rights and the impossibility of restitution. For further guidance on rescission in the context of misrepresentation, see Practice Note: Misrepresentation—rescission as a remedy. There are many ways in which a contract may reach its end; see: Terminating contracts—how and when a contract ends—overview for a brief and accessible summary, with links to the related further practical guidance, including Practice Note: Termination and expiry of contracts. For a table
What is a res judicata? A res judicata is a determination by a court or tribunal with jurisdiction over the cause of action and the parties, which finally disposes of the issues decided so they cannot be litigated again by those bound, save on appeal. Final judgments entered by default or by consent fall within this concept, whereas rulings on purely procedural points and any decision lacking finality do not. The doctrine’s aim is to bring litigation to an end and shield parties from being harassed by the same dispute twice. in personam—binds the parties and their privies in rem—binds all persons, privy or otherwise (ie a judgment binding the whole world) A party may rely on res judicata: as an estoppel to defeat an opponent’s claim or defence; and/or as the basis of their own claim or
The offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent can be tried solely in the Crown Court on indictment. Elements of the offence Under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (OATPA 1861), the prosecution must establish that the defendant unlawfully and maliciously: wounded with the intention of causing GBH, or caused GBH with that intention, or wounded intending to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of any person, or caused GBH intending to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of any person ‘Unlawfully’ and ‘maliciously’ Unlawfully The wounding or causing of GBH must be unlawful. Such conduct may be lawful if used: in self-defence in defence of another in defence of property for the prevention of crime where the victim gave express or implied consent For further information on these defences, see below:
Most recent Practice notes
This 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 ...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the date of the disqualification order on 3 July 2020; it is not being maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline of a CMA Chapter I investigation into suspected price‑fixing of commission rates by estate agents in Somerset ( Case 50235). Latest development On 3 July 2020, the High Court affirmed a director disqualification order sought by the CMA against Mr Michael Martin for his role in the cartel. The Court has barred Mr Martin from acting as a director, or from being concerned in the management of a company, for seven years. It also held that Mr Martin contributed to his former company’s breach of competition law; that business owned and operated Gary Berryman Estate Agents in Burnham‑ On‑...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 6 October 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court seeking to set aside the fine arising from the Commission’s decision (as amended) which found breaches of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and imposed a €4.231m penalty on Uralita, jointly and severally with Aragonesas, for its alleged role in a cartel concerning the supply of sodium chlorate (‘ Sodium chloride cartel’). On 6 October 2015, the General Court rejected the action in full. This matter concerns, amongst other things, how the limitation period applies to the imposition of fines for antitrust infringements, particularly in the setting of a ‘single and continuous infringement’ and where an amended...
CASE HUB (appeals lodged by Philips and Infineon at the General Court in Cases T-762/14 and T- 758/14) ARCHIVED – this archived case hub records the position as at the decision of 3 September 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline of the European Commission’s Article 101 TFEU inquiry into the smart card chips cartel (case reference COMP/39.574). Parties Infineon, a German-based company Philips, a Dutch-based company Samsung, a South Korean-based company Renesas, a Japanese-based company that at the time of the infringement was a joint venture between Hitachi and Mitshubishi......
An interview with Matej Kavčič, managing partner, Aleksandra Mitić, partner, Aljoša Aleksovski, associate, and Tim Gaberšek, junior associate, of Slovenian law firm Kavčič, Bračun & Partners, o.p., d.o.o. ( KBP), exploring key merger control issues in Slovenia. NOTE—to verify whether notification thresholds in Slovenia and across the globe are met, 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 Slovenia? On 29 September 2022, the Slovene National Assembly passed the new Prevention of Restriction of Competition Act ( ZPOm K-2). ZPOm K-2 was published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia on 11 October 2022, entered into force on 26 October 2022, and has applied since 26 January 2023. The updated Competition Act ( ZPOm K-2) leaves the core merger...
An interview with Tomas Maretta, partner, Marek Holka, partner, and Andrej Katrušin, associate, at Slovak firm ČECHOVÁ & PARTNERS s. r. o., exploring core issues in Slovak merger control. Note—to determine whether notification thresholds in Slovakia and across the globe are met, consult Where to Notify. 1. What recent changes have influenced the Slovak merger control framework, and are further developments anticipated in the year ahead? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control topics in Slovakia? Recent Legislative Developments On 15 May 2024, Slovakia enacted substantial revisions to its competition regime through Act No. 93/2024 Coll., amending Act No. 187/2021 Coll. on the Protection of Competition. The reforms are designed to harmonise national rules with recent European Union instruments, in particular the Digital Markets Act ( DMA) and the Foreign Subsidies Regulation. The DMA-focused amendment aims to reinforce the broader toolkit for enforcing...
This table sets out all completed investigations by Slovakia’s competition authority (the Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic— AOSP) into suspected cartels, anti‑competitive agreements and abuses of dominant positions ( Articles 101/102 TFEU and national equivalents) since 2018. Note—only investigations that have been made public are included in this table. 2026 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/ Article 4 of the Act on Protection of Competition Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Supply and manufacture of cables 11 undertakings (listed here) Cartel and restrictive agreement Infringement finding published—11/03/2026; total fines of €97.4m imposed Public procurement (medicines) Phoenix...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position on 26 September 2014 and is no longer maintained. For more detail, see the timeline, commentary and relevant and related cases below. Case facts Outline Skyscanner Limited appealed the OFT’s decision to accept commitments in the hotel online booking matter (case 1226/2/12/14). On 26/09/2014, the CAT upheld the appeal and set aside the decision. Parties Skyscanner Limited – a Scotland-based online travel agent ( OTA), offering price comparison and booking for hotels, flights and car hire. Competition and Markets Authority (assumed the OFT’s functions on 1 April 2014). Interveners Booking.com BV Skoosh International Ltd Expedia Inc Intercontinental Hotels Group PLC Background On 31 January 2014, the former OFT announced acceptance of commitments from Booking.com and Expedia. Skyscanner filed its appeal on 31 March 2014. On 1 May 2014, Booking.com BV, Skoosh International Ltd, Expedia, Inc and...
1. What is the applicable legislation? Serbia presently lacks an FDI framework akin to the models spreading across Europe after the EU FDI Screening Regulation came into force. Rather, it retains a classic, one‑sector approval scheme concentrated solely on defence, mirroring arrangements many European states set up in the latter half of the twentieth century. This approval mechanism in defence is governed by the Production and Trade of Arms and Military Equipment Act ( Official Gazette of Serbia no. 36/2018) (the Arms Act). More generally, investment in Serbia falls under the Investment Act ( Official Gazette of Serbia, nos. 89/2015 and 95/2018). Nonetheless, as mentioned, no overarching or comprehensive FDI regime exists at present. Accordingly, Serbia’s approach remains sector‑specific and historically rooted. No cross‑cutting screening rules apply today. 2. Which government or other body (or bodies) reviews foreign...
This table sets out every concluded probe by Serbia’s competition regulator (the Commission for Protection of Competition—the CPC) covering alleged cartels, anti-competitive arrangements, and abuses of dominance since 2018. Note—only inquiries that have already entered the public domain are included within this table for reference. 2020 Investigations under Article 10 of the Law on Protection of Competition Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Real estate agencies Lodge Real Estate Limited Monarch Real Estate Limited Restrictive agreements—price fixing High Court judgment—10/09/2020; fines totalling $4m imposed Investigations under Article 15 of the Law on Protection of Competition Case name, companies under investigation......
India—deal value thresholds enter into force This month, India’s deal value thresholds took effect. In 2023, we outlined major updates to India’s merger control under the Competition ( Amendment) Act 2023 ( Amendment Act), which reformed the Competition Act 2022. As of 10 September 2024, the Amendment Act’s merger control provisions are in force. Alongside this, the Competition Commission of India ( CCI) issued the Competition Commission of India ( Combinations) Regulations 2024 ( Revised Combination Regulations). A headline reform is the introduction of a deal value threshold as an additional jurisdictional trigger. The pre-existing asset/turnover thresholds remain in place. A mandatory filing is required where both of the following apply: the transaction value exceeds IND 20bn (€223.9m/ US$ 238.1m); and the target has substantial business operations in India. Where these criteria are met, the target-based exemption will not be available. For the purpose of...
This month saw proposed changes to Finland’s merger control thresholds put before Parliament for approval, the release of revised Guidelines on Small Merger Notification in South Africa designed to bring more deals within notification scope, and the expiry of the Philippines’ two-year temporary merger control thresholds of PHP 50bn. Finland—amendments to the merger control thresholds laid before Parliament for approval As highlighted in our June 2020 monthly update, the Finnish government has been proposing a significant reduction to Finland’s merger notification thresholds. A deal would be notifiable if: the aggregate value of assets transferred in Argentina does not surpass ARS 3.251m (approximately €23.7m/ US$24.9m); the overall purchase price for the transaction in Argentina does not top ARS 3.251m (approximately €23.7m/ US$24.9m); On 19 September 2022, the Finnish government submitted its proposals before Parliament for approval. The new notification thresholds are...
1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Senegalese merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Senegal? Although Senegal maintains a competition framework, set out in Law No. 94-63 of 22 August 1994 on Prices, Competition and Economic Disputes and its implementing Decree No. 95-77 of 20 January 1995 (the Competition Law), it does not establish a merger control system under that framework. In addition, the National Competition Commission ( NCC), created under the Competition Law, exists in name but is not presently operating. Senegal belongs to the West African Economic and Monetary Union ( Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine) ( WAEMU) and falls under WAEMU’s competition instruments, notably Directive 02/2002/ CM/ UEMOA (the WAEMU Regulations). Within member countries, WAEMU exercises sole authority over merger control. The NCC’s...
ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is now archived and is no longer being actively maintained. On 10 May 2022, the Commission introduced a new Vertical Block Exemption Regulation 2022/720 ( VBER 2022). From 1 June 2022, the VBER 2022 superseded the earlier Vertical Restraints Block Regulation 330/2010 ( VBER 2010, also called the VRBE within this Practice Note). This Practice Note was originally prepared for the VBER 2010 specifically. Note—the VBER 2010 expired on 31 May 2022 and, with effect from 1 June 2022, was replaced by the VBER 2022. Under Article 10 VBER 2022, there was a 12 month transition period (ending on 31 May 2023) for pre-existing vertical agreements already in force on 31 May 2022 that satisfied the conditions for exemption under the VBER 2010 on 31 May 2022 but failed to satisfy the conditions for exemption under the VBER 2022....
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment dated 15 May 2015 and is no longer maintained. See the timeline, commentary and related cases. Note—the CMA has appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court in Société Coopérative de Production Sea France v CMA ( Supreme Court). Case facts Outline Appeal before the Court of Appeal by Société Coopérative de Production Sea France concerning the completed acquisition by Eurotunnel of Sea France assets—this appeal contests the CAT’s judgment upholding the CMA’s decision in the Eurotunnel/ Sea France remittal, confirming jurisdiction and again banning Eurotunnel from operating ferries from Dover. The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment and, by a two-to-one majority, allowed the appeal on 15 May 2015. Parties Groupe Eurotunnel, the Channel Tunnel operator that acquired three Sea France ferries and other assets and now runs them between Dover and Calais under the My...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 16 December 2015; it is no longer kept up to date. See also the timeline, commentary and related cases... Case facts Appeal to the Supreme Court by the Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA) concerning the completed purchase by Eurotunnel of Sea France assets. The appeal challenged the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 15/05/2015 in SCOP v CMA and DFDS ( Court of Appeal), which had allowed an appeal by Société Coopérative de Production Sea France ( SCOP) against the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s judgment of 09/01/2015 in Eurotunnel and SCOP v CMA (2). The CAT had upheld the CMA’s remittal findings confirming its jurisdiction and had again imposed a prohibition on Eurotunnel operating ferries from Dover. The Supreme Court handed down its judgment on 16/12/2015, allowing the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 10 December 2020; it is no longer updated. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline of Case C‑160/19, Comune di Milano v Commission—an appeal to the Court of Justice challenging the General Court’s ruling in Case T‑167/13, which had rejected an action seeking annulment of the European Commission’s decision. That decision found, among other matters, that capital injections made by SEA Handling’s publicly owned shareholders conferred an improper economic benefit on the company over rivals ( SA.21420). Latest development On 10 December 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment and dismissed the appeal in full. It concluded, in particular, that the General Court had not erred in determining: the presence of a transfer of State resources and that this could be attributed to the State; and the private economy investor...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 18 July 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Schindler, together with several subsidiaries within the Schindler group, appealed the General Court’s judgment that dismissed its action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision, which had found an infringement and imposed a €143.7m fine for its alleged role in a lifts and escalators cartel between 1995 and 2004. At the time the Commission adopted that decision, the combined administrative penalties of €992.3m on four lift and escalator manufacturers constituted the highest overall fine the Commission had ever imposed for a cartel breach; it also included what was then the largest individual penalty on an undertaking ( Thyssen Krupp)—a sum later cut by nearly €160m on appeal following the General Court’s...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the decision of 29 April 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU investigation into Samsung (case number COMP/39.939). Latest developments On 29 April 2014, the Commission accepted binding commitments from Samsung. For five years, Samsung will not seek injunctions based on any of its present or future SEPs relating to technology in Mobile SEPs (for example, smartphones and tablets) against any company that agrees to a licensing framework. The licensing framework allows for negotiations lasting up to 12 months; if no agreement is reached, FRAND terms will be set by a court or by arbitration. If the parties cannot agree on the form of third party determination, they will be required to submit to arbitration......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub sets out the position as at the Court of Appeal’s refusal of permission to appeal on 1 October 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline Ryanair requested that the CMA assess whether there had been a material change in circumstances, following the Court of Appeal’s judgment rejecting Ryanair’s appeal against the CAT’s decision upholding the Competition Commission ( CC)’s final report on Ryanair’s completed purchase of a minority shareholding in Aer Lingus, under which the CC required Ryanair to cut its interest in Aer Lingus from 29.8% to 5%. The CMA determined there was no change of circumstances and, on 11/06/2015, issued its final order compelling Ryanair to reduce its stake in Aer Lingus to 5%; on 15/07/2015 the CAT dismissed Ryanair’s appeal against this decision, after which Ryanair...
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
