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 the Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA) opened a consultation on suggested amendments to its merger-control guidance covering jurisdiction and procedure. CMA launches consultation on proposed changes to its merger control guidance on jurisdiction and procedure On 20 June 2025, the CMA commenced a consultation on updates to its guidance on jurisdiction and procedure ( CMA2), as well as to the merger notice template. These proposals seek to embed the authority’s new ‘4P’s’ framework—pace, predictability, process, and proportionality—throughout its mergers process. The package includes: clarifications to how the CMA applies the ‘material influence’ and ‘share of supply’ tests revisions concerning the CMA’s treatment of global mergers changes to pre-notification and the phase 1 merger process, along with amendments to the current merger notice template Clarifications to the CMA’s ‘material influence’ and ‘share of supply’ tests The CMA may claim...
This June 2022 monthly round-up notes the passage of amendments to China’s Anti- Monopoly Law (including adjustments to the merger control regime), as well as the launch of a new consultation on additional proposed amendments to China’s merger control thresholds, the publication of a draft bill in Finland to reduce merger control thresholds, the introduction of revised notification thresholds in Kosovo, and the resumption of the merger control review process in Ukraine... China—amendments passed on Anti- Monopoly Law including in relation to merger; new consultation launched proposing changes to merger control thresholds On 24 June 2022, the 35th meeting of the 13th National People’s Congress Standing Committee approved amendments to the Anti- Monopoly Law ( AML). In respect of merger control, the principal changes are: higher penalties for gun-jumping. For an unnotified merger that does not raise competition concerns, the maximum fine rises from RMB...
This month notably brought approval by the German Parliament of amendments to the German Competition Act (including revisions to Germany’s merger control framework), both a shortening in Spain of the deadline for mergers filed via the short-form route together with an extension to the phase 2 timetable, and, in the US, the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice releasing draft merger guidelines for consultation. Germany—parliament approves amendments to the Competition Act; increases the target company threshold allowing the FCO to investigate mergers after a sector inquiry has been completed On 6 July 2023, the German Parliament ( Bundestag) adopted the Competition Enforcement Act, revising the Act Against Restraints of Competition (the Competition Act) for the 11th time overall. For merger control, the Federal Cartel Office ( FCO) gains a new call-in power following a sector inquiry where both of the following are...
Joint ventures Companies often use joint ventures to break into markets and to create new offerings and products. How these arrangements are treated under EU competition law turns on whether a concentration arises and if the EU merger control regime is triggered and applicable. Under the EU merger rules, the notion of joint control means many joint ventures constitute notifiable concentrations by virtue of the concept. Consequently, care must be taken in assessing and addressing them under the EU Merger Regulation ( EUMR), including how they should be analysed and dealt with. The EUMR treats as a concentration any case in which one or more enterprises gains control over another enterprise. By their nature, joint ventures involve two or more parent companies either jointly buying an existing business or pooling resources and expertise to set up a new company. Such...
Johnson & Johnson/ Tacho Sil ( M.9547) [ Archived] CASE HUB Archived — This case hub records the situation as at 8 April 2020, when the transaction was abandoned, and is no longer being maintained. For more details, see the timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline of the European Commission’s merger review into Johnson & Johnson’s proposed purchase of the haemostatic patch Tacho Sil from Takeda Pharmaceuticals International AG ( Case M.9547). The deal presents a horizontal overlap in the haemostatic patches market. Latest developments On 8 April 2020, the parties withdrew their notification to the Commission and announced they had abandoned the transaction. Parties Johnson & Johnson ( J& J): Headquartered in the US, J& J is the parent of a global group active in pharmaceuticals, medical devices and consumer healthcare products. Takeda Pharmaceuticals International AG ( Takeda): An affiliate of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, a public company...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged by JD Sports before the CAT in 1354/4/12/20 Archived — this archived case hub records the position as at the decision of 6 May 2020 and is no longer being maintained. For more, see the timeline and commentary. NOTE—following the appeal in JD Sports Fashion plc v CMA, the investigation was remitted to the CMA (see JD Sports Fashion plc/ Footasylum plc (remittal investigation)). Case facts Outline UK merger probe into the completed purchase by JD Sports Fashion plc of Footasylum plc. The deal features horizontal overlaps in markets for the retail of sports fashion footwear and clothing. Latest developments On 15 October 2020, the CAT released an order (dated 13 October 2020) consenting to JD Sports Fashion plc and Pentland Group Limited withdrawing their appeal against the CMA’s decision to impose a £300,000 penalty on Pentland Group and JD Sports for failing to...
Note — to determine whether notification thresholds in Japan and worldwide are satisfied, refer to Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Japanese merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Japan? On 17 December 2019, the Japan Fair Trade Commission ( JFTC) issued the Revised Guidelines to Application of the Antimonopoly Act Concerning Review of Business Combination ( Revised Antimonopoly Guidelines 2019), together with the Revised Policies Concerning Procedures of Review of Business Combination ( Revised Antimonopoly Policies 2019)......
This month has brought updated merger control thresholds across Argentina, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Columbia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Peru, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and the USA. New thresholds have also taken effect in China, Ukraine and Uruguay. In addition, COMESA has opened a consultation on its draft Competition and Consumer Protection Regulations. Argentina—annual revision to notification thresholds Argentina has implemented revised notification thresholds following the yearly uplift in the value of adjustable units, the metric underpinning the filing triggers. A deal must now be notified where the parties’ combined turnover in Argentina surpasses ARS 50.6bn (approximately EUR 59.9m/ US$ 172.9m), increased from ARS 16.2bn, unless: the aggregate value of assets transferred in Argentina is no more than ARS 10.1bn (approximately EUR 31.9m/ US$ 34.5m) the overall price payable for the transaction in Argentina does not exceed ARS 10.1bn...
NOTE—to check whether notification thresholds in Italy and around the world are met, see: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Italian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Italy? A key recent change to the Italian merger control framework was introduced in 2022, granting the Italian Competition Authority ( ICA) the power to examine below-threshold deals. Further, Italian rules have been fine-tuned to align with the principles and provisions of Council Regulation ( EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation), a text with EEA relevance ( EUMR). Article 16.1 of Law No. 287 of 10 October 1990 ( Italian Competition Law, ICL 1990) provides that a concentration must be notified to the ICA prior to...
This table outlines concluded investigations by Italy’s competition authority (the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato— AGCM) into alleged cartels, anti‑competitive agreements and abuses of dominant positions ( Articles 101/102 TFEU and national equivalents) since 2015. Note—only investigations that have been made public are reflected here. 2026 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/ Article 2 of the Law No. 287/90 Mid-range jewellery — Morellato Issues: Restrictive agreements— RPM Developments: Infringement decision adopted—31/03/2026; fines totalling €25,895,043 imposed Broadband — Fibercop; TIM Issues: Restrictive agreements—exclusivity clauses Developments: Commitments accepted—23/02/2026 ...
Note— To check whether notification thresholds in Israel and worldwide are triggered, see Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Israeli merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Israel? In January 2022, a new Director General of the Israel Competition Authority (the Director General and the ICA, respectively) took office— Adv. Michal Cohen. Ms Cohen has served at the ICA for 15 years and previously acted as the ICA’s Legal Adviser. From the very start of her tenure, Ms Cohen adopted a firm, hands-on approach, launching multiple enforcement actions, including for gun-jumping breaches, and tightening the standard for clearing merger deals. In December 2021, while serving as acting Director General, Adv. Cohen presented the ICA’s activity to the Knesset’s Economic Affairs Committee and, among other things,...
Note—to check whether notification thresholds in the Isle of Man and worldwide are satisfied, consult: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been recent developments regarding the regime? What are the main points of interest and are any further updates/developments expected? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in the Isle of Man? The Competition Act 2021 ( Act 2021) established, for the first time, a merger control framework within Isle of Man law. Although the Act 2021 is now in force, drafts of several significant items of secondary legislation under it—covering matters such as the notification thresholds—were rejected by the local legislature in January 2025; accordingly, the thresholds for notification remain unknown. Under the Transfer of Competition Functions ( OFT to CURA) Order 2025, responsibility for enforcing the Act 2021—including merger control—shifted in the spring of 2025 from the Office of Fair Trading to the...
This table sets out all concluded probes by Ireland’s competition authority (the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission— CCPC) into suspected cartels, anti-competitive arrangements and abuses of dominance ( Articles 101/102 TFEU and domestic counterparts) since 2015. Note—only matters placed in the public domain appear in this table. 2025 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/ Section 4 of the Competition Act 2002 The CCPC issued no decisions under Article 101/section 4 in 2025. 2025 Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/ Sections 5-7 of the Competition Act 2002 The CCPC issued no decisions under Article 102 TFEU/section 5 in 2025. 2024 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/ Section 4 of the Competition Act 2002 Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments The CCPC issued no decisions under Article 101/section 4 in 2024. 2024 Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/ Sections 5-7 of the Competition Act 2002 Case name,...
A conversation with Thomas Calvert, partner, and Aro Omar, senior associate, on key issues on merger control in Iraq. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Iraq? The Competition and Antitrust Law No. 14 of 2010 ( CAL) stands as Iraq’s core framework for competition and antitrust. Its remit is to organise market competition and deter monopolistic behaviour harmful to participants in the Iraqi marketplace. As for recent movement, it is understood that the Council of Competition and Antitrust Affairs (the Council) was formed and held its first meeting on 10 July 2023. Article 4.1 of the CAL mandates the creation of the Council, identifying it as the principal state authority charged with implementing the CAL. Under Article 1.2, the Council...
1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Iran? The overall framework of competition law in Iran is chiefly set by Chapter 9 of the Law on the Implementation of General Policies of Principle 44 of the Constitution 2007 (the Law), entitled Facilitating Competition and Prohibiting Monopoly, covering Articles 43–84. Alongside this, an Implementing Directive for Articles 47, 48, and 49 (the Directive) has a direct bearing on merger control. Importantly, Article 2 of the Directive defines what constitutes a concentration and provides the test for determining whether a merger creates undue market concentration, which may warrant prohibition. This test sits at the heart of Iran’s merger control system. A landmark example is the Netbarg– Takhfifan merger, widely regarded as one of the most...
IP disputes arise where one side—typically the claimant in this note—asserts that its patent has been infringed, while the defendant contests the patent’s validity. These matters are commonly resolved through settlement, yet such arrangements can themselves fall foul of Article 101(1) TFEU. The European Commission (the Commission) has provided guidance addressing this point. NOTE— Although the Brexit transition period ended on 31 December 2020, this Practice Note continues to cite EU and UK competition law side by side. That is because, even though UK regulators and courts may now depart from EU jurisprudence, any divergence between the two systems is expected to be incremental and progressive, as such, over time, since: (i) the UK competition framework is strongly grounded in concepts honed and refined over many years in EU case law (concepts which the UK courts were required to apply in harmony with UK...
This month brought multiple developments: Cambodia’s post-merger notification system took effect; India released its Draft Merger Regulations with clarification on the deal value threshold; Luxembourg’s government shared further details on the legislative bill to establish a merger control regime; amendments to Moldova’s Competition Law entered into force; and Ukraine’s Parliament published changes to the country’s competition law framework. Cambodia—new merger control thresholds enter into force As flagged in our March 2023 update, the Cambodian Competition Commission ( CCC) adopted regulations creating a post-merger notification system. The regime commenced on 6 September 2023. Deals must be notified in Cambodia when any of the following apply: the combined Cambodian assets of all parties in the previous financial year exceed KHR 340bn (approx. €78.8m/ US$83.1m); the combined Cambodian turnover or revenue of all parties in the previous financial year exceeds KHR 270bn (approx. €62.7m/ US$66m) or KHR 120bn...
This month featured the Australian Government issuing a consultation paper on prospective changes to its merger control system, a suspension of the merger filing deadline in Brazil owing to CADE’s lack of quorum, the Danish Government formally opening a consultation on amendments to the Competition Act aimed at addressing so‑called ‘killer acquisitions’, the 11th amendment to the German Act Against Restraints of Competition ( ARC) taking effect, alongside the government commencing a consultation on the 12th amendments to the ARC, revisions to merger control thresholds in Saudi Arabia, a notice of forthcoming alterations to merger control thresholds in the UAE, and the start of a new consultation on the UK’s phase 2 merger review process. Australia—government launches consultation on potential reforms to merger control regime In earlier monthly merger round‑ups, we noted several public statements by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ( ACCC)...
This month brings higher notification thresholds in India, alongside the annual adjustments to merger thresholds in Italy and the Philippines. India—increases in the merger control thresholds On 7 March 2024, the Government revised the asset and turnover thresholds for notifying M& A transactions to the Competition Commission of India ( CCI). The de minimis exemption, and the parties and group tests under the Competition Act 2002 (as amended), have been changed. A filing is now required in India where stand-alone parties meet any of the following: combined assets in India exceed INR 2,500 Crores ( INR 25bn) (approximately €279.95m/ US$302.67m) (previously INR 20bn); combined turnover in India exceeds INR 7,500 Crores ( INR 75bn) (approximately €839.86m/ US$908.00m) (previously INR 60bn); combined worldwide assets exceed US$1.25bn (approximately €1.16bn) (previously US$1bn), including assets in India exceeding INR 1,250 Crores ( INR 12.5bn) (approximately €139.98m/ US$151.33m) (previously INR...
This month, the East African Community Competition Authority confirmed it will accept merger filings with a cross-border aspect from 1 November 2025. EACCA to commence receipt of cross-border merger notifications; notifications thresholds and filing fees confirmed The East African Community Competition Authority ( EACCA) stated it will start receiving notifications of mergers and acquisitions featuring a cross-border dimension from 1 November 2025, under the East African Community Competition Act 2006. A deal must be notified to the EACCA where: the combined turnover or asset value of the merging undertakings within the EAC is US$35m or more (whichever is higher); and at least two of the undertakings involved have a combined turnover or asset value of at least US$20m in the EAC, unless each party earns at least two-thirds of its turnover or holds two-thirds of its assets within a single EAC Partner State The EACCA has also set the filing...
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
