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 month, Parliament signed off powers to call in sub-threshold mergers in Denmark, released guidelines clarifying how Egypt’s new merger control regime will apply, revised Jordan’s merger thresholds by introducing a turnover-based test, and the UK’s Digital Markets, Consumers and Competition Act obtained Royal Asset... Denmark— Parliament passes bill introducing power to call in below-threshold mergers In our November 2023 monthly merger update, we noted that the Danish Competition and Consumer Authority ( DCCA) initiated a consultation on proposed revisions to the Danish Competition Act. Regarding merger control, the Government suggested a call-in mechanism enabling the DCCA to require notification of deals falling below the existing thresholds. Under the proposal, the DCCA may oblige undertakings to notify a merger if: the undertakings concerned have a combined annual Danish turnover of at least DKK 50m; and the DCCA considers there is a risk the merger would...
CASE HUB ( NOTE—appeal lodged by Marine Harvest before the Court of Justice in Case C-10/08 Marine Harvest v Commission (failure to notify)) ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment of 26 October 2017; it is no longer being updated entirely. See further, the timeline, commentary and related or relevant cases. Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court against the European Commission decision penalising Marine Harvest for not notifying its acquisition of control over Morpol and for breaching the standstill obligation. Latest development On 7 March 2017, the General Court delivered its judgment, ultimately dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision to levy fines for failure to notify a merger and for non-compliance with the standstill rule brought by Marine Harvest. Parties Applicant: Marine Harvest. Defendant: European Commission. Marine Harvest is a Norwegian seafood company producing farmed salmon, white halibut and a...
Margin squeeze Margin squeeze is a form of exclusionary behaviour aimed at rivals, intended to remove them or undermine their viability—either by driving them from the market or by deterring entry at the outset. Where a vertically integrated firm holds a dominant position in an upstream market for a vital input and also supplies that input to wholesale customers who compete at retail, it can have both the means and the incentive to exclude those competitors from the downstream market. The dominant firm compresses retail rivals’ margins by setting a high wholesale charge, a low retail price, or a mix of the two, thereby narrowing the gap between the cost of essential inputs and the price attainable in the retail market. Consequently, the spread between the dominant undertaking’s retail price for the product or service and the wholesale price it levies on its rivals is...
Why you need to manage this risk Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( TFEU) concerning EU competition law, and Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 for UK competition law, each outlaw agreements between undertakings, decisions of associations of undertakings, and concerted practices that may influence trade—between Member States under Article 101 TFEU, or within the UK under the Chapter I prohibition—and whose object or effect is to prevent, restrict, or distort competition. Failure to meet competition law obligations can lead to a range of outcomes: Fines: The European Commission ( Commission) and the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA) primarily penalise anti‑competitive conduct by imposing fines on infringing businesses. Every separate breach can attract a fine of up to 10% of your annual worldwide turnover. Void and unenforceable agreements: Agreements infringing Article 101(1) TFEU or Chapter I are void and...
NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in Malta and throughout the world are met, see further: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Maltese merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Malta? Malta introduced the Control of Concentrations Regulations ( Subsidiary Legislation 379.08) (the Regulations) in 2003. Other than institutional reforms made in 2019 to remedy unconstitutional shortcomings in the previous public enforcement set-up of competition law, there have been no significant amendments to the Regulations. In 2023, the Director General ( Competition) of the Office for Competition (the NCA) announced plans to adjust the jurisdictional turnover test for inflation; however, no formal proposals have been tabled or adopted to date. In 2024, the NCA blocked an international discount retail chain in Malta from buying property...
This table sets out all finalised investigations by Malta’s competition authority (the Maltese Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority— MCCAA) into suspected cartels, anti-competitive agreements, and abuses of dominant positions ( Articles 101/102 TFEU and equivalent national provisions) since 2016. Note—only investigations that have been publicly disclosed are listed here......
1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Malian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Mali? Competition in Mali is governed by Law No. 2016-066 of 24 February 2016 on the Organisation of Competition, alongside its 2018 Implementing Decree (the Competition Law). Enforcement is handled by the General Directorate for Trade, Consumption and Competition ( DGCCC), created by Ordinance No. 2017-2013/ P- RM on 6 March 2017. Mali belongs to the West African Economic and Monetary Union ( Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine) ( WAEMU) and therefore falls under WAEMU competition provisions, including Directive 02/2002/ CM/ UEMOA. WAEMU asserts exclusive authority over merger control in its member states; however, whether Mali acknowledges that exclusivity is not entirely clear. See also: WAEMU merger control. There have been no recent...
NOTE—to check whether notification thresholds in Malawi and worldwide are satisfied, consult: Where to Notify for further guidance. Malawi also belongs to COMESA, which runs a supra-national merger control regime as well. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Malawian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Malawi? Malawi has newly passed the Competition and Fair Trading Act, 2024 ( Act), supplanting the 1998 statute to remedy enforcement shortcomings and harmonise with international best practice in the field. It establishes compulsory merger and acquisition notification, with clearance required prior to completion of transactions. It expands definitions and consumer protections, including for digital products, and tackles unfair trading practices in the marketplace. The Act also adds measures to curb exploitation by powerful purchasers, notably within...
This table sets out all concluded inquiries by Luxembourg’s competition regulator ( Conseil de la Concurrence Grand Duché de Luxembourg—the Commission) into suspected cartels, restrictive agreements, and misuse of dominance ( Articles 101/102 TFEU and national equivalents) since 2018. Note—only inquiries that are publicly disclosed are included in this table for now......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment date of 8 September 2016 and is no longer being maintained. See further: timeline commentary relevant/related cases NOTE—appeals lodged by Lundbeck and others at the Court of Justice (see below) Case facts Outline Actions before the General Court seeking annulment and/or a cut in the fines levied following the Commission’s 19 June 2013 decision which found four breaches of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, and imposed total penalties of €146m on Lundbeck and generic manufacturers for concluding agreements that postponed the market entry of generic citalopram in the EEA (“pay-for-delay”). On 8 September 2016, the General Court rejected in full the claims brought by Lundbeck and the generic companies, thereby upholding the Commission’s infringement findings and the combined €146m fines on Lundbeck and the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived hub captures the status as at the judgment dated 12 March 2020; it is no longer maintained or updated. For more, see the timeline information provided. Case facts Outline Case T-531/18 LL- Carpenter v Commission — an appeal before the General Court against the European Commission’s refusal to pursue a complaint concerning alleged anti-competitive conduct by Subaru in case AT.40037. Latest developments On 12 March 2020, the General Court handed down its ruling, dismissing the action in full. Parties Applicant: LL- Carpenter s.r.o., a company based in the Czech Republic. LL- Carpenter acts as an independent broker for acquiring Subaru and Daihatsu motor vehicles overseas on behalf of end customers in the Czech Republic; it also operates as an independent repairer of those marques in the Czech Republic. Defendant: European...
A conversation with Linas Petronaitis, senior associate in the Vilnius office of regional law firm Sorainen, on the key issues on merger control in Lithuania. NOTE— For guidance on whether Lithuanian and worldwide notification thresholds are reached, refer to Where to Notify. 1. What recent shifts have occurred in Lithuania’s merger control framework, and what is anticipated over the next year? Are there any other pressing themes? Across 2024 and 2025, the standout issue is so‑called ‘gun‑jumping’—putting a deal into effect before clearance. Two gun‑jumping probes are under way. On 16 January 2023, the Competition Council launched proceedings against MM Grupp OÜ concerning its purchases of cinemas in Vilnius and Kaunas previously owned by Forum Cinemas Lithuania. On 7 April 2023, the Council also ordered interim measures against MM Grupp OÜ, barring any further acquisition of Forum Cinemas Lithuania’s assets. That case remains active and is...
This table provides a synopsis of all concluded investigations by Lithuania’s competition regulator (the Konkurencijos Taryba— KT) into suspected cartels, restrictive agreements and misuse of dominant positions ( Articles 101/102 TFEU and equivalent national laws) since 2018. Note—only cases that are publicised are listed here......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 26 May 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Standalone proceedings before the CAT were brought by Socrates Training Limited against the Law Society of England and Wales, alleging abuse of dominance ( Case 1249/5/7/16). Latest development On 26 May 2017, the CAT issued its judgment on liability, concluding that the Law Society had abused its dominant position (in breach of the Chapter II prohibition) in the market for supplying quality certification/accreditation to conveyancing firms by requiring that certain training courses were sourced exclusively from it. The CAT also held that the Chapter I prohibition had been infringed. However, it determined that liability arose only from the end of April 2015, and not earlier. The Tribunal will next consider quantum. That same day, the CAT made...
Note—see Where to Notify to check whether notification thresholds in Latvia and worldwide are met. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Latvian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Latvia? Latvia’s merger control rules have seen no substantive change since 2016. Since 2023, the Latvian Competition Council ( Competition Council) has not issued any merger control decisions that would qualify as ‘landmark’. Looking ahead, the Competition Council has flagged upgrades to the regime among its 2025 priorities. The planned measures are designed to make filing merger notifications easier and to expand the range of deals suitable for a shortened procedure. As part of this programme, the Competition Council also intends to roll out an electronic system for submitting...
This table sets out all completed investigations by Latvia’s competition authority (the Competition Council of the Republic of Latvia—the ‘ Competition Council’) into alleged 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/ Section 11 of the Competition Law No decisions have yet been issued by the CC under Article 101 TFEU/ Section 11 in 2026... 2026 Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/ Section 13 of the Competition Law Classified advertising services — SS Issues: SS SIA allegedly abused a dominant position by imposing restrictive terms and curbing access to its online advertising platform Developments: Infringement decision...
A conversation with David Fruitman, Regional Competition Counsel, and Kristy Newby, Country Managing Director, Lao PDR, at regional law firm DFDL Legal and Tax Services, on key issues on merger control in Laos 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 Laos? Although the Law on Competition ( No. 60/ NA, 14 July 2015) (the Competition Law) was adopted in December 2015 and a regulatory body was formed in October 2018, no implementing regulations have been promulgated to date, meaning the Competition Law is not presently being applied, notwithstanding the creation of the Business Competition Commission. Under the law, is the control test the same as the EU concept of...
An interview with Elvira Maratova, partner and head of the Kyrgyzstan practice, Tamirlan Muktarov, senior associate, and Elmira Usenova, associate at regional law firm GRATA International Law Firm, exploring central issues on merger control in Kyrgyzstan. Note – to verify whether notification thresholds in Kyrgyzstan and worldwide are reached, consult Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the merger control regime in Kyrgyzstan and are any updates or developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Kyrgyzstan? Resolution No. of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Kyrgyz Republic......
CASE HUB ( NOTE— On 3 August 2016, the European Commission approved, with commitments, the creation of a joint venture between Vodafone Group and Liberty Global in the Netherlands ( Case M.7978). KPN lodged an appeal against that decision before the General Court in Case T-370/17). ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 23 May 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Third party action before the General Court seeking the annulment of the European Commission decision to approve, with commitments, the joint venture between Vodafone Group and Liberty Global. Latest development On 23 May 2019, the General Court delivered its judgment, dismissing in its entirety a third party action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 3 August 2016 to authorise, with commitments, a joint venture between Vodafone Group and Liberty Global in the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the date the deal was called off, 22 April 2022; it is no longer being maintained. See also the timeline. Case facts Overview of the European Commission’s merger review of the planned acquisition by Kingspan Group plc of Trimo, arhitekturne rešitve, d.o.o. ( M.9938). The planned deal entailed a horizontal overlap in the supply of mineral fibre sandwich panels. Latest developments On 22 April 2022, the parties withdrew their notification to the Commission and stated that the transaction had been dropped. Parties Kingspan Group plc ( Kingspan): Based in Ireland. Its core activities include manufacturing sandwich panels, insulation, light & air solutions, water & energy, and data & flooring technology......
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
