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 sets out the position as at the date the transaction was abandoned on 2 May 2016; it is no longer being maintained Case facts Outline European Commission merger inquiry into the intended acquisition by Halliburton of Baker Hughes ( Case M.7477). The deal featured horizontal overlaps concerning the supply of oilfield services. Latest developments On 1 May 2016, the parties announced that they had abandoned the transaction, and the notification was withdrawn on 2 May 2016. Parties Halliburton, a US company based in Houston, Texas and quoted on the New York Stock Exchange. Founded in 1919, it is among the largest providers of products and services to the global energy sector, with over 80,000 employees active in more than 80 countries. Baker Hughes, a US company headquartered in Houston, Texas and listed on the New York Stock...
EU dimension The opening task in any EU merger control review is to determine if the deal falls under the scope of the EU Merger Regulation ( EUMR). The EUMR bites only on concentrations that possess an ‘ EU dimension’. A concentration encompasses most arrangements that involve the acquisition of control, and its reach is broader than traditional merger scenarios, notably taking in many, and often intricate, joint ventures, as well as other structures where control is obtained (see A ‘concentration’ with an EU dimension). Whether a deal has an ‘ EU dimension’ turns solely on meeting specified turnover thresholds. These thresholds are purely jurisdictional and applied without regard to: substantive competition concerns the parties’ nationality the country in which the deal occurs the law governing the transaction Accordingly, the EUMR may capture transactions with minimal, or even no, EU connection in practice. The transaction must exhibit an EU...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position at the decision date of 20 March 2014; it is no longer updated. See timeline. Case facts Summary of the OFT’s Chapter I inquiry into a cartel within the care home medicines sector. The OFT delivered its final decision on 20/03/2014. Latest developments The OFT delivered its final decision on 20 March 2014......
CASE HUB (appeals lodged at the Court of Justice in Cases C- 519/15 ( Trafilerie Meridionali), C- 523/15 ( Westfälische Drahtindustrie), C- 510/15 ( Fapricela), Case- 505/15 ( SLM), T- 419/10 ( Ori Martin) and T- 514/15 ( HIT Groep)) ARCHIVED – this case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 15 July 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeals were brought before the General Court seeking annulment and/or decreases to the fines levied following the Commission’s decision of 30 June 2010 (as modified by two later decisions), which found breaches of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and imposed fines of €269.87m (initially fixed at €518.5m) on 16 undertakings operating in the supply of prestressing steel, for alleged involvement in a price‑fixing and...
A discussion with Nurlan Kyshtobaev, partner and head of Tajikistan practice, and Bahodur Nurov, senior associate at regional law firm GRATA Law Firm, on key issues in merger control in Tajikistan NOTE – to check whether notification thresholds in Tajikistan and worldwide are met, see Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the merger control regime in Tajikistan and are any updates or developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Tajikistan? Competition and merger oversight in Tajikistan is primarily governed by the Law on the Protection of Competition No. 1417 (the Competition Law), enacted on 30 May 2017. Since its adoption, no material new developments have occurred. Nevertheless, aspects of the statute create certain risks, notably around extraterritorial application. Consequently, the Antitrust Authority could prohibit particular transactions even where there is no direct effect on...
Introduction When a company is acquired, when firms merge, or when a joint venture is created, it is necessary to assess whether the transaction will fall under merger control in any jurisdiction where a party is active and may therefore require filings. There are merger control regimes in more than 150 jurisdictions worldwide, most of which require mandatory notifications where specified thresholds are met. Authorities do impose penalties on companies that fail to notify, and transactions can be suspended until competition agencies have granted clearance. In many of those places, completion is prohibited until the relevant authority has issued a clearance decision. This obliges advisers to build in potential time delays where merger notifications are required and to consider the impact that uncertainty may have on the deal. If the transaction does fall within merger control, a filing to the...
This Practice Note explains the principal EU competition law considerations that arise in distribution and reseller arrangements. It is written chiefly for commercial and IT lawyers who are conducting the competition assessment themselves (notably in-house teams without immediate access to specialists), and it also serves as a touchpoint for competition practitioners delivering comprehensive advice to clients. It covers: a concise outline of EU competition rules relevant to vertical agreements; key factors to weigh when performing an initial review of a distribution/reseller agreement; and specific problem areas, with drafting suggestions to steer clear of frequent pitfalls. The Practice Note focuses on facilitating compliance with the EU’s block exemption for vertical agreements— The Vertical Block Exemption Regulation 720/2022 ( VBER 2022). Overview of the law Article 101(1) TFEU Distribution and reseller contracts fall within Article 101(1) TFEU, which prohibits agreements between undertakings, or concerted practices, that (a) may influence trade between Member...
CASE HUB ( NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C‑595/18) ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment of 12 July 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary, and relevant/similar cases. Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court seeking annulment (in full or in part) and/or a reduction of the fines imposed in relation to the Commission’s decision of 2 April 2014, by which the Commission levied penalties totalling €301.6m on manufacturers of high‑voltage power cables for their involvement in a worldwide market‑sharing and customer‑allocation cartel (the power cables cartel), including a fine of €37.3m on The Goldman Sachs Group. Also see the case hub on other judgments concerning the power cables cartel delivered by the General Court on 12 July 2018 in Cases: T‑422/14 T‑438/14 T‑439/14 T‑441/14 T‑444/14 ...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 24 September 2020; it is no longer kept up to date or revised. For further details, see the timeline, commentary, and related or similar cases. Case facts Outline: Case C-601/18 P, Prysmian and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi v Commission—an appeal lodged before the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgment in Case T-475/14, which rejected an action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision in relation to the high-voltage power cables cartel matter ( AT.39610). Latest development On 24 September 2020, the Court of Justice handed down its ruling, dismissing the appeal in its entirety......
Cases C- 591/18 Brugg Kabel AG and Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding v Commission, C- 593/18 P ABB Ltd and ABB AB v Commission and C- 596/18 P LS Cable & System Ltd v Commission (power cables cartel) [ Archived] CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub records the position as at the judgments of 28 November 2019 and is no longer being maintained. For additional detail, refer to the timeline, commentary, and related or similar cases. Case facts Outline: Cases C-591/18 Brugg Kabel AG and Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding v Commission, C-593/18 P ABB Ltd and ABB AB v Commission, and C-596/18 P LS Cable & System Ltd v Commission comprise appeals before the Court of Justice challenging the General Court’s judgments in Cases T-441/14, T-445/14 and T-439/14. Those rulings dismissed actions seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision in the...
Since the Brexit transition period concluded on 31 December 2020 (the IP completion day), the EU's 'one-stop shop' regime no longer applies in the UK, with the result that mergers may now face parallel scrutiny by both the CMA and the European Commission (the Commission) (see also, Brexit and IP completion day—implications for UK competition law). This tracker outlines every deal assessed by the CMA that has likewise been notified to the Commission from IP completion day onwards......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment of 6 October 2015 and is not being maintained. For further details, see: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline A reference from Denmark’s Sø- og Handelsret (the national maritime and commercial court) was submitted to the Court of Justice seeking a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU. Among other matters, it asked whether, when assessing the anti-competitive character of rebate schemes under Article 102 TFEU, the law requires a price/cost evaluation comparing the dominant undertaking’s conduct with that of an equally efficient competitor (the ‘as-efficient-competitor’ test), and also whether any exclusionary effect arising from the rebate arrangement must be ‘appreciable’ in order to fall within Article 102 TFEU......
Note—to check whether notification thresholds in Portugal and worldwide are met, see: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Portuguese merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Portugal? Portugal’s merger control rules were last overhauled in 2012 with the current Competition Act ( Law 19/2012 of 8 May 2012) ( Competition Act). A 2022 update implementing the EU ECN+ Directive did not materially alter the merger control system. 2024 was the most active year in a decade. The Authority delivered 93 final outcomes: 79 clearances, five conditional approvals (two following an in‑depth probe), eight inapplicability findings, and one prohibition. Two Phase II remedies cases— Live Nation/ MEO Arena R& B and Ylport Iberia GSMarítima/ Sotagus—were lengthy, concluding after 19 and 11 months,...
This table provides an overview of all concluded investigations by Portugal’s competition authority (the Autoridade Da Concorrenca— Ad C) into suspected cartels, anti-competitive agreements, and misuse of dominant positions ( Articles 101/102 TFEU and national equivalents) since 2018. Note—only investigations that have been made public are included......
This table outlines all concluded investigations by Poland’s competition authority (the Polish Competition and Consumers Protection Authority— UOKi K) into suspected cartels, anti-competitive arrangements, and abuses of dominance ( Articles 101/102 TFEU and national equivalents) since 2018. Note—only investigations that have been publicly disclosed are included in this table here......
ARCHIVED – this case hub reflects the position as at the judgment dated 21 January 2020 and is no longer maintained. Note – on 20 May 2020, the Supreme Court declined Ping Europe Limited’s application to bring an appeal. See further: timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal brought by Ping Europe Limited against the CAT’s decision upholding the CMA’s infringement finding that it had violated Article 101(1) TFEU and/or the Chapter I prohibition of the Competition Act 1998 by stopping retailers from selling its clubs on their websites. Latest developments On 20 May 2020, the Supreme Court refused Ping Europe Limited’s application to appeal the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 21 January 2020. That judgment dismissed Ping Europe Limited’s appeal against the CAT’s ruling, which upheld the CMA’s conclusion that Ping Europe Limited’s ban on online sales amounted to a...
CASE HUB ( NOTE—appeal lodged before the CAT in Ping Europe Limited v CMA (1279/1/12/17), see Ping Europe v CMA) ARCHIVED – this archived case hub sets out the position as at the 24 August 2017 decision date; it is no longer updated. See further the timeline, related commentary and associated cases for reference. Case facts Outline CMA Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I CA98 probe into purported anti‑competitive practices within the wider sports equipment market, including a notable prohibition on internet sales of golf clubs. Latest developments On 24 August 2017, the CMA delivered an infringement decision against Ping Europe Limited ( Ping) and levied a £1.45m penalty for stopping two UK retailers from offering Ping golf clubs for sale online (on the retailers’ own websites). The ruling obliges Ping to terminate the online sales restriction and to avoid applying the same or similar conditions to other...
Note—check Where to Notify to confirm whether notification thresholds in Peru and worldwide are satisfied. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Peruvian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other 'hot' merger control issues in Peru? On 30 December 2020, Peru’s Congress enacted the Merger Control Law 2021 ( MCL 2021). Following the publication of supplementary regulations, it entered into force on 14 June 2021. Before this, under the Antitrust and Antioligopoly Law for the Electricity Sector 2009 (as amended) ( AAL 2009), Peruvian rules required compulsory pre-notification and clearance solely for vertical or horizontal concentrations within electricity generation, transmission, or distribution. Once the MCL took effect, the AAL and Urgency Decree No 13/2019 were repealed. Among other modifications, the MCL allows the authority to review a concentration ex...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the decision date of 5 November 2011 and is no longer maintained. For additional details, see the timeline, commentary and related cases Case facts Outline UK merger scrutiny into the completed purchase of Sembcorp Bournemouth Water Investments Limited by Pennon Group. In line with its obligation to refer any water sector merger to a phase 2 inquiry where the parties have UK turnover above £10m, the CMA proceeded to a phase 2 investigation Latest developments On 5 November 2015, the CMA gave unconditional clearance to the deal, upholding its provisional conclusions Parties Pennon Group is a UK-based water utility and waste business. It is among the largest environmental and resource management companies in the UK, with assets of around £5bn. Its subsidiary, South West Water, is one of the UK’s ten water and sewerage companies, delivering water and...
ARCHIVED —this archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 7 May 2021; it is no longer updated or maintained. See the timeline and related cases for detail and context. Case facts Outline Generics UK Limited v CMA (1251/1/12/16), Glaxo Smith Kline PLC v CMA (1252/1/12/16), Xellia Pharmaceuticals APS and Alpharma LLC v CMA (1253/1/12/16), Actavis UK Limited v CMA (1254/1/12/16) and Merck KGa A v CMA (1255/1/12/16) – all appeals before the CAT arising from the CMA’s decision of 12 February 2016 in Glaxo Smith Kline and others (paroxetine) ( CE/9531-11). Latest development On 10 May 2021, the CAT handed down a supplementary judgment which affirmed the CMA’s infringement finding, namely that: Generics ( UK) Limited and Alpharma were potential rivals of Glaxo Smith Kline PLC at the point they entered the settlement agreements; the settlement agreements were...
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
