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
Royal Mail plc v Ofcom & Anor ( Court of Appeal) [ Archived] CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 07/05/2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline Outline An appeal against the CAT’s ruling which upheld Ofcom’s decision that Royal Mail infringed the Chapter II prohibition under the Competition Act 1998 and Article 102 TFEU by discriminating against its only competitor ( Whistl) in relation to the supply of bulk mail services in the UK. Latest developments On 7 May 2021, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment, dismissing the appeal in its entirety. The Court of Appeal held that the CAT: did not err in concluding that it is not necessary to apply an as‑efficient‑competitor test (the AEC test) in every case, and that using the AEC test here was...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged by Royal Mail before the CAT (1299/1/3/18) ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 14 August 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, and commentary. Case facts Outline Ofcom undertook an Article 102 TFEU and Chapter II inquiry into Royal Mail for an alleged abuse of dominance, said to involve discriminatory treatment of its only competitor in letter delivery, Whistl. Latest developments On 14 August 2018, Ofcom decided that Royal Mail had breached Section 18 of the Competition Act and Article 102 TFEU by abusing its dominant position, and issued a £50m fine. Parties Royal Mail Group Ltd ( Royal Mail), the UK’s incumbent postal and courier operator Whistl, formerly TNT Post UK, is a UK postal delivery business. It lodged the complaint against Royal Mail and competed directly by...
This overview condenses all concluded probes by Romania’s competition authority, the Romanian Competition Council ( RCC), into suspected cartels, anti-competitive arrangements and abuses of dominance ( Articles 101/102 TFEU and national counterparts) since 2018. Note—only publicly disclosed investigations are reflected here. 2026 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/ Article 4 of the Competition Law Luxury eyewear — Thelios. Issue: restricting agreement. Outcome: infringement decision on 23/01/2026; fines totalling LEI 4.5m. Vehicle maintenance and repair services — 25 undertakings within Auto Italia Impex SRL’s authorised service network; Gothaer Asigurări- Reasigurări SA (now Allianz-Țiriac Unit Asigurări SA); Uniqa Asigurări SA. Issues: restricting agreements—price fixing and co-ordination of commercial strategies. Outcome: infringement decision on 19/01/2026; fines totalling LEI 14.73m. Road maintenance — Oyl Company Holding; Autoprima Serv; Saga Infrastructură. Issues: restricting agreements—bid rigging. Outcome: infringement decision on 14/01/2026; fines totalling LEI 8.29m. Motor vehicle...
1. What is the applicable legislation? The rules governing foreign direct investment are set out in: Competition Law No. 21 of 10 April 1996, as later amended and republished, most recently by Government Emergency Ordinance ( GEO) No. 17/2026 of 13 March 2026 ( Competition Law 1996) Regulation on economic concentrations adopted by Order No. 432/2017 of the President of the Romanian Competition Council ( RCC) Supreme Council for State Defence ( CSAT) Decision No. 73/2012 concerning the application of article 46 paragraph (9) of the Competition Law 1996 GEO No. 46/2022 implementing Regulation ( EU) 2019/452 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union ( FDI GEO 2022), published on 18 April 2022 and approved by Law No. 164 of 31 May 2023, further amended by GEO No. 108 of 29...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 4 November 2020 and is no longer being updated. For more, see the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline CMA Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I probe into suspected price-fixing in the UK market for the supply of rolled lead (a roofing material) ( Case 50477). Latest developments On 10 March 2021, the CMA stated it had obtained legally binding director disqualification orders against: Mr Jocelyn Campbell ( BLM British Lead) Mr Graham Hudson ( Associated Lead Mills Ltd) Mr Maurice Sherling ( Associated Lead Mills Ltd) Mr Campbell has undertaken not to serve as a director of any UK company for six and a half years. Mr Hudson has undertaken not to serve as a director of any UK company for four years. Mr Sherling has...
CASE HUB ( NOTE—appeal lodged before the CAT in relation to the level of fine imposed in Roland ( U. K.) Limited and Another v CMA (1365/1/12/20)) ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 29 June 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline of a CMA investigation under Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I CA98 alleging Roland ( U. K) Limited infringed UK and EU competition rules by curbing online discounting of its drum kits, plus associated parts and accessories. Latest developments On 29 June 2020, the CMA delivered an infringement decision, concluding Roland ( U. K) Limited violated the Chapter I prohibition/ Article 101 TFEU through resale price maintenance, by obliging sales of its electronic drum kits and related components and accessories at or above a set minimum. The...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This case hub, now archived, sets out the position as at the judgment dated 19 June 2019 and is no longer updated. See further: timeline and related case... Case facts Outline RF lodged an appeal against a General Court order which had thrown out RF’s action concerning its complaint about the Commission’s decision in Case AT.40251 relating to the rail, freight and forwarding sector... Outcome On 19 June 2019, the Court of Justice rejected RF’s appeal against the refusal of its complaint regarding the Commission’s decision in Case AT.40251 concerning the rail, freight and forwarding sector... Under Article 73(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the date and time when the Registry receives by telefax a complete copy of the signed original procedural document is treated as the date and time of lodging for compliance with procedural time limits, provided the signed...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This case hub is archived and records the position as at the date of the judgment of 11 July 2019; it is no longer maintained. Note—appeals were lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C-702/19 and C-70/19 P. For further detail, consult the timeline, commentary, and related or relevant cases. Case facts Outline An action was brought before the General Court seeking annulment and/or reductions in the level of the fines imposed by the Commission’s decision of 24 June 2015, which identified five infringements of Article 101 TFEU and imposed total fines amounting to €115.865m for participation in the retail food packaging trays cartel. Outcome On 11 July 2019, the General Court delivered its judgments, in which it: upheld one plea advanced by CCPL. In the initial decision, CCPL received a 25% reduction owing to its ability to pay. CCPL...
CASE HUB NOTE–appeal lodged by third party ( Personnel Hygiene Services Limited) against CMA’s decision to accept Final Undertakings to implement remedies ARCHIVED – this archived case hub records the position at the 25 January 2019 decision date; it is not updated. See timeline. Case facts Outline UK merger probe into the completed purchase by Rentokil Initial plc of Cannon Hygiene Limited. The deal features horizontal overlaps in the markets for providing washroom products and services. Latest developments On 25 January 2019, the CMA published its phase 2 final report and cleared the deal subject to remedies. The CMA determined the transaction created an SLC in the supply of waste disposal services at national and multi-regional levels. As remedies, the CMA decided that Rentokil Inc plc and Cannon Hygiene Limited must dispose of all contracts with customers that have premises nationwide and across multiple regions, where Cannon Hygiene...
NOTE—appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C-31/23 P, C-30/23 P and C-29/23 P ARCHIVED — this case hub reflects the position as at the judgment of 9 November 2022 and is no longer maintained. See further: timeline. Case facts Outline Appeals were brought before the General Court seeking annulment of the European Commission’s readopted decision that identified infringements and imposed fines totalling €16.1m for participation in a price-fixing cartel in the Italian reinforcing bars market ( AT.37956). Outcome On 9 November 2022, the General Court delivered its judgments, rejecting the appeals in their entirety as unfounded. The Court concluded that the Commission made no procedural missteps in relation to its 2019 decision and that, in light of the case’s complexity, the duration of the proceedings was not unreasonable. It further held that the ne bis in idem principle was not violated, given that the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position at the date of the decision, 19 February 2013, and is not being updated further. See also the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline: a UK merger examination concerning the proposed acquisition by Rank Group of Gala Casinos, anticipated at the time. Latest developments On 19 February 2013, the Competition Commission issued its final report, authorising the transaction subject to remedies, namely the disposal of the Gala casinos in the four areas identified below. Gala will continue to operate these casinos, and a sunset clause will prevent Rank from purchasing them for 10 years. Rank may proceed to acquire the Gala casino in Edinburgh but must divest its cold licence. Parties Rank Group plc ( Rank) and Gala Casinos Limited ( Gala)......
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 466/19 P ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 9 April 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary, and related cases. Case facts An appeal was brought before the General Court to overturn a formal request for information ( RFI) issued by the European Commission in its ongoing Article 102 TFEU inquiry into Qualcomm’s alleged predatory pricing ( Case AT.39711). Outline The appeal sought annulment of the Commission’s RFI adopted during the pending investigation. Outcome On 9 April 2019, the General Court handed down its judgment, dismissing the appeal in full. It rejected assertions that the RFI was disproportionate or excessive and that the Commission had not provided adequate reasons for issuing it. The Court reiterated that the Commission has ‘broad powers of...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the date the deal was abandoned on 01/08/2014 and is no longer being maintained. For further details, see case facts and the timeline provided. Case facts Outline of the UK investigation into the anticipated merger between Pure Gym Limited and The Gym Limited. Latest developments On 16 July 2014, the parties stated they had dropped the proposed merger after the CMA referred the case for a phase II investigation. The CMA formally cancelled the investigation on 1 August 2014. The transaction was referred to a phase II investigation by the CMA on 26 June 2014. The CMA's phase II deadline is 10 December 2014. At phase I, the parties offered undertakings in lieu; however, the CMA was not satisfied these would resolve fully the competition concerns identified......
What is the Takeover Code? The Code sets out the core rules and principles that govern how UK public takeovers are carried out. Offerors should consider how merger control may influence the timetable, management and terms of any offer within the Code’s scope. It is a non-statutory regime, created and overseen by the Panel. The Code rests on six overarching principles, including ensuring equal treatment for all shareholders; supplying sufficient information and advice so shareholders can evaluate an offer; and maintaining orderly, fair markets in the company’s shares. Alongside these sit 38 detailed rules, including: Rule 2.1: absolute secrecy pre-announcement Rule 9: the circumstances in which a 'mandatory offer' must be made following the acquisition of certain voting rights in a listed company For details of the regulatory regime applicable to public company takeover transactions, see The Panel and the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the decision of 18 January 2022 and is no longer being maintained. For additional detail, see the timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline The Payment Systems Regulator ( PSR) conducted a Chapter I investigation into suspected competition law infringements by five undertakings— Mastercard, allpay, APS, PFS and Sullion—arising from arrangements not to compete or to poach one another’s clients. Latest development On 18 January 2022, the PSR issued an infringement decision, finding the five parties had breached competition law by agreeing not to compete or solicit each other’s customers in the prepaid cards market in Great Britain. The PSR imposed total penalties of £33,261,352. Fines per party were: Mastercard — £31,560,062 (including a 20% reduction for settlement) PFS — £916,746 (including a leniency reduction and a 20% settlement reduction) allpay — £28,553 (including a 20% settlement...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment of 2 June 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and relevant/related cases NOTE—appeals lodged before the Court of Justice Cases C-454/16, C-455/16, C-456/16, C-457/16, C-458/16, C-459/16, C-460/16, and C-461/16 Case facts Outline Proceedings before the General Court sought annulment and/or a reduction of fines arising from the Commission’s decision of 30 June 2010—subsequently amended twice—which found infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. Penalties totalling €54.4m were imposed on four Celsa Group companies for their purported involvement in a price fixing and market-sharing arrangement in the prestressing steel industry (‘ Prestressing steel cartel’). The applicants also challenged a later Commission letter refusing to reconsider the parties’ asserted inability to pay. On 2 June 2016, the General Court dismissed in full eight...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 26 September 2013; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline Appeals were lodged against General Court judgments dismissing actions seeking annulment of a Commission decision, later partly amended, that imposed fines totalling €247.6m—those totals likewise being partly revised—on The Dow Chemical Company, EI du Pont de Nemours, and three further companies for their alleged involvement in an EEA‑wide chloroprene rubber cartel between 1993 and 2002. The appeals examine when parent undertakings can be held accountable for EU competition infringements by their subsidiaries, including in the context of full‑function joint ventures. Parties Appellants: EI du Pont de Nemours ( Du Pont) Dow Chemical Company ( Dow) Other parties: Du Pont Performance Elastomers LLC Du Pont Performance Elastomers SA European...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment dated 12 December 2019; it is no longer maintained. See also the timeline, commentary, and related/relevant cases for further details. Case facts Outline Case C‑435/18 Otis Gesellshaft m.b.h. and Others v Land Oberösterreich and Others – a national judicial reference from Austria seeking clarification on whether various lift manufacturers should face damages claims by an Austrian local council on the basis that their cartel conduct increased the cost of its loans to construction companies. Latest developments On 12 December 2019, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment. The Court of Justice confirmed and clarified that, under Article 101 TFEU, persons who are neither suppliers nor customers on a market affected by a cartel may obtain compensation for loss caused by that...
NOTE—to check whether notification thresholds in North Macedonia and worldwide are satisfied, see: Where to Notify. NOTE—before 12 February 2019, North Macedonia was referred to as Macedonia. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the North Macedonian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Also, are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in North Macedonia? The European Commission's Staff Working Document, North Macedonia Report 2023, indicates that: North Macedonia’s competition law framework is largely consistent with the EU acquis in the mergers field, although elements of the implementing rules still require alignment. As regards implementation, the number of merger decisions stayed around the average seen in prior years (120)......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 24 October 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Kone lodged an appeal against the General Court’s ruling, which dismissed its action seeking annulment of the Commission decision dated 21 February 2007. That decision imposed a €142.12m fine, on a joint and several basis, on Kone Oyj and its German and Dutch subsidiaries, for alleged participation in a Benelux and German cartel covering the supply, installation, servicing and modernisation of elevators and escalators between 1995 and 2004 (“ Elevators and escalators cartel”). At the time the decision was adopted, the aggregate fine of €992.3m on four manufacturers of elevators and escalators constituted the highest overall penalty ever imposed by the Commission for a cartel...
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
