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
NOTE—to verify whether notification thresholds in Panama and throughout the world are satisfied, see further: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Panamanian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Panama? There have been no recent changes to the Panamanian merger control regime. Nonetheless, conversations about possible amendments remain ongoing, including the potential introduction of notification thresholds. Regarding ‘hot’ issues, the authorities appear particularly focused on sectors or markets that visibly affect a large base of consumers, for example the food industry. 2. Under Panamanian merger control law, is the control test the same as the EU concept of ‘decisive influence’? If not, how does it differ and what is the position in relation to 'minority...
1. Have there been recent developments regarding Palestine’s merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Palestine? Yes. The key change is the issuance of Decree- Law No. (11) of 2025 on Competition, printed in the Official Gazette on 27 May 2025 ( Competition Law 2025). The statute became operative six months after publication (late 2025) and, for the first time, creates a compulsory merger control framework. Expected follow-on steps include: Implementing Regulations: the Council of Ministers is charged with adopting regulations necessary to carry out the law; and a transitional rectification period: establishments must remedy pre-existing breaches within six months from the law’s commencement. At present, no particular ‘hot topics’ have materialised, as the system is newly in force in Palestine. 2. Under Palestinian merger control law, is the control test the same as...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the situation as at the decision of 27 October 2022 and is no longer updated. For more details, see the timeline. Case facts Outline A reference from Spain asks whether Article 5(1) of Directive 2014/104 should be read so that disclosure of ‘relevant evidence’ concerns only existing materials held by a defendant or a third party, or whether Article 5(1) also extends to documents that the addressee of the request may have to produce ex novo by compiling or organising information, knowledge or data it already holds. Latest development On 10 November 2022, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment and, aligning with the Advocate General, held that Article 5(1) means the production of “relevant evidence” also includes documents the addressee may need to create ex novo by aggregating or classifying information, knowledge or data in its...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 25 November 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline An appeal was lodged before the General Court seeking to annul the Commission’s decisions of 25 and 27 June 2013, which compelled France Télécom, Orange and all entities they directly or indirectly controlled to submit to an inspection, under Article 20(4) of Regulation 1/2003, in support of a Commission inquiry into a suspected abuse of dominance in Internet connectivity services. Telecoms operators Deutsche Telekom and Telefónica were likewise subjected to unannounced inspections as part of the same probe. The General Court delivered its judgment on 25 November 2014. On 3 October 2014, the Commission announced that it had closed the investigation without taking any action. It adopted a...
Below tracks the live appeals against CMA decisions in competition cases before CAT and the appeal courts. For information on concluded appeals, see UK merger appeals—closed cases tracker, UK behavioural competition appeals—closed cases tracker, and UK market investigations appeals—closed cases tracker. NOTE—finalised appeals are moved from this......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub now records the position as at the decision date of 19 April 2012 and is no longer maintained...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this case hub, now archived, sets out the position as at the decision dated 6 December 2013; it is no longer actively updated. Case facts Outline OFT Chapter I investigation into a suspected cartel within access control and alarm systems across the retirement properties sector. Parties Cirrus Communication Systems Limited ( Cirrus) Peter O' Rourke Electrical Limited Owens Installations Limited Glyn Jackson Communications Limited ......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision dated 5 August 2013 and is no longer maintained. Please see the timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases for further detail. It reflects the position at that date only... Case facts Outline of the OFT’s Chapter I investigation into Roma Medical Aids and retailers concerning mobility scooters... Latest developments On 5 August 2013, the OFT issued an infringement decision and directed the firms to end the arrangements (where this had not already occurred) and to avoid entering similar arrangements in future. The OFT did not impose fines because the agreements were treated as a ‘small agreement’ that is immune from fines—this applies where the parties’ combined turnover is under £20m and price fixing is not involved......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the decision of 30 May 2019 and is no longer maintained. See the timeline and commentary for further detail. Case facts Summary of Ofgem’s Chapter I investigation into two energy suppliers and a consultancy over an alleged breach of competition law through customer allocation and the sharing of sensitive information. Latest development On 30 May 2019, Ofgem issued an infringement decision finding that E ( Gas and Electricity) Limited, Economy Energy, and Dyball Associates, an energy software and consultancy provider, violated Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998. The total fines imposed amounted to £870,000. Parties Economy Energy Trading Limited and its parent Economy Energy Holdings Limited (together Economy Energy), a UK-based supplier of electricity and gas. The majority of Economy Energy’s customers are on prepayment. E ( Gas and Electricity) Limited and its parent E Holdings Limited...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the decision on 7 November 2016; it is no longer maintained. See the timeline for more information. Case facts Outline: Ofgem conducted an Article 102 TFEU/ Chapter II investigation into SSE plc over an alleged abuse of dominance linked to hindered competition in the market for connecting new developments to SSE’s electricity distribution networks. Latest developments On 7 November 2016, Ofgem formally accepted commitments from SSE and therefore closed its investigation, without deciding whether competition law had been infringed. In brief, the commitments require that: there is broad parity of quotations and charges between point of connection and all-works quotations issued by SSE for the same site all SSE quotations must be clear and transparent; this is enabled by the functional separation of SSE’s connections team into a...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision dated 23 November 2021; it is no longer maintained. For more, see the timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Ofgem Article 102 TFEU/ Chapter II investigation into Pay Point concerning an abuse of dominance through the inclusion of particular contractual provisions with certain energy suppliers and retailers which granted Pay Point exclusivity for OTC payment services for prepayment energy customers. Latest developments On 23 November 2021, Ofgem stated it had decided to accept commitments from Pay Point, alongside a £12.5m donation to Ofgem’s Energy Industry Voluntary Redress Scheme, and had brought the case to a close. Parties Pay Point plc Pay Point Network Limited Pay Point Collections Limited Pay Point Retail Solutions Limited (together, Pay Point): Pay Point provides OTC payment services to prepayment energy customers in the UK. For the collection of OTC payments, Pay Point operates a network of...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub sets out the position as at the date of the decision of 15 December 2022; it is no longer updated. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Ofcom Chapter I investigation into the sharing of commercially sensitive information between Sepura and Motorola in relation to a procurement exercise run by the Police ICT Company in 2018. Latest development On 15 December 2022, Ofcom issued an infringement decision and levied fines totalling £1.5m on Sepura. Motorola was granted immunity for disclosing the existence of the anti-competitive conduct. Parties Motorola Solutions UK Limited and its ultimate parent company Motorola Solutions Inc. (together, Motorola) Sepura Limited ( Sepura) Market(s) Territorial trunked radio devices, accessories and related services. Background Background Airwave is a private network in Great Britain which is used by the emergency services......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 14 November 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline: Ofcom Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I investigation into Royal Mail and The Sales Group concerning an alleged customer allocation arrangement in the parcel delivery services market, contrary to competition law. Latest development On 14 November 2019, Ofcom issued an infringement decision concluding that Royal Mail and The Sales Group broke competition rules by agreeing not to provide or supply parcel delivery services to each other’s customers. The object of the arrangement was to limit competition by sharing customers within the relevant market. As a result, some customers were unable to buy services from their preferred supplier and, in certain instances, paid higher prices. The Sales Group settled and received a £40,000 penalty. Royal Mail...
This month saw the European Commission open an investigation into Nvidia’s planned purchase of Run: AI following a national call-in by Italy’s competition authority, the UK Government begin a consultation on reforming media merger rules, and the CMA confirm it will undertake a review of merger remedies in early 2025... EU— European Commission to investigate Nvidia/ Run: AI merger after Italy call-in On 3 September 2024, the Court of Justice overturned the General Court’s ruling and annulled the Commission’s decision to accept referrals from multiple national competition authorities to review Illumnia’s acquisition of Grail under Article 22 of the EU Merger Regulation, even though the deal fell short of the EUMR thresholds and the referring Member States’ national merger control thresholds. The judgment sparked debate over whether the Commission needs fresh tools to address so‑called ‘killer acquisitions’ of small and...
NOTE—to check whether notification thresholds in Norway and throughout the world are met, please refer to: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Norwegian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Norway? By way of context, Norway’s Competition Act ( Act on competition between undertakings and control with concentrations of 5 March 2004, No. 12) (the Competition Act) is administered by the Norwegian Competition Authority ( Konkurransetilsynet). Under section 16, paragraph 1, the Konkurransetilsynet must prohibit concentrations that would significantly impede effective competition ( SIEC), particularly where a dominant position is created or strengthened—ie the same analytical test as under Articles 2(2) and 2(3) of the EU Merger Regulation ( EUMR). There is an independent appellate body for competition matters, the Competition Appeals Board (...
This table provides an overview of concluded investigations by Norway’s competition watchdog (the Konkurransetilsynet) into suspected cartels, restrictive agreements, and abuses of market dominance ( Articles 101/102 TFEU and national counterparts) since 2018. Note—only cases made public are included in this table here......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at 25 March 2019, the date of the decision, and it is no longer maintained. For more, see: timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into vertical constraints on cross-border sales of licensed merchandise imposed by Nike ( Case AT.40436). Latest developments On 25 March 2019, the Commission adopted an infringement decision against Nike, imposing a €12,555,000 fine (following an ‘informal settlement’) for applying vertical restrictions on the cross-border sale of licensed merchandise in breach of Article 101 TFEU. Parties Nike is a US-based company that designs and sells athletic footwear and clothing, including for football clubs and federations. Background The Commission opened its investigation in June 2017. Two parallel investigations into the licensing and distribution practices of Sanrio and Universal Studios were launched at the same...
NOTE— To determine whether notification thresholds in Nicaragua and across the world are triggered, see: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Nicaraguan merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Nicaragua? On 29 April 2024, Issue No. 75 of ‘ La Gaceta’, the Official Journal of Nicaragua, published Law No. 1202, the ‘ Law on the Creation of the Attorney General’s Office for the Defence of Free Competition and Alternative Dispute Resolution’, which became effective on the same day. Among its aims, the Law creates the Attorney General’s Office for the Defence of Free Competition and Alternative Dispute Resolution—within the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic—as the new governmental body in charge of competition and antitrust matters, taking over...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment of 16 July 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentaryrelated/similar cases. Case facts Outline Case C‑606/18 P, Nexans France SAS and Nexans SA v Commission—an appeal to the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgment in Case T‑449/14, which had rejected an action to annul the Commission’s decision in the high‑voltage power cables cartel matter ( AT.39610). Latest development On 16 July 2020, the Court of Justice issued its ruling dismissing the appeal in full, broadly in line with Advocate General Kokott’s opinion. It upheld the General Court’s view that there was no error of law concerning either the Commission’s conduct during the dawn raid or the approach used to calculate the...
ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment dated 5 March 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, Case facts, Outline. Outline Appeal against the CAT’s judgment arising from a successful claim by Achilles Information Limited against Network Rail Infrastructure Limited, alleging infringements of Chapter I and Chapter II linked to Network Rail’s stipulation that the Railway Industry Supplier Qualification Scheme ( RISQS) be the compulsory supplier assurance scheme for Great Britain’s rail sector. Latest developments On 5 March 2020, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment, rejecting Network Rail’s appeal on every ground. Parties Achilles Information Limited ( Achilles) provides supplier assurance services across a variety of industries in the UK and internationally. Network Rail Infrastructure Limited ( Network Rail) is an undertaking active in operating and providing access to national rail network...
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
