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 check whether notification thresholds in India and globally are met, see further: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Indian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in India? The Competition Act, 2002 ( Competition Act), together with its implementing regulations, is the sole framework overseeing merger control in India. In April 2023, the Government of India enacted the Competition ( Amendment) Act, 2023 ( Amendment Act), introducing multiple changes to the Competition Act and significantly reshaping the regime. Thereafter, in September 2024, the implementing rules and regulations were issued, namely: Competition Commission of India ( Combinations) Regulations, 2024: substantive regulations that operationalise the merger control provisions under the Competition Act Competition ( Criteria of Combination) Rules, 2024 ( Green Channel Rules): these set out the...
1. What is the applicable legislation? The laws governing FDI comprise the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 ( FEMA), and the Foreign Direct Investment Policy, 2020, as amended from time to time ( FDI Policy), read together with the Foreign Exchange Management ( Non- Debt Instruments) Rules, 2019, as amended from time to time ( NDI Rules), forming the applicable framework. 2. Which government or other body (or bodies) reviews foreign investments? Under Indian exchange control regulations, two routes are available for an overseas investor, depending on the sector in which the investment is proposed to be made: automatic route—investments under this route do not need approval from the designated Government department, though sector-specific conditions may apply and be attached to them approval route—investments under this route require prior approval from the designated Government department and may include sector-specific conditions attached to the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archive captures the position as at the date of the decision and is no longer maintained. NOTE Appeals were lodged before the General Court in Cases T-755/21, T-23/22, T-5/23 and T-591/23. See the timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases for further details. Case facts Outline European Commission inquiry into whether, amongst other matters, Illumina’s completion of its acquisition of GRAIL while the Commission’s in-depth review of the notified deal was still underway breached the standstill obligation under Article 7 EUMR ( M.10493). Latest development On 6 September 2024, the Commission announced the withdrawal of its decisions in M.10493, M.10483, M.10938 and M.10939, following the Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C-611/22. Parties Illumina, Inc. ( Illumina): Illumina is a global genomics business, incorporated and headquartered in the US, which primarily develops, manufactures and commercialises next-generation sequencing ( NGS) systems for genetic and genomic analysis. GRAIL, Inc. (...
CASE HUB See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeals contesting the General Court’s judgment in Case T‑227/21, which rejected an action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 19 April 2021 to accept a referral request under Article 22 EUMR concerning Illumina, Inc.’s acquisition of GRAIL, Inc. ( M.10188). Outcome On 21 March 2024, Advocate General Emilious delivered an opinion advising the Court of Justice to set aside the General Court’s judgment and annul the Commission’s acceptance of requests by France and five other Member States for referral, under Article 22 EUMR, of Illumina, Inc.’s proposed acquisition of GRAIL, Inc. He considers that Member States cannot request the Commission to review a concentration lacking a Community dimension, even where they have no power to assess such a concentration under national law. Parties Applicants: Illumina, Inc. ( Illumina) Applicants: GRAIL, In ( GRAIL) Defendant: European...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment dated 9 October 2014 and is no longer updated. For further detail, see: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeal lodged by Chimiques du Fluor ( ICF) challenging the General Court’s ruling which rejected ICF’s action to annul the Commission decision of 25 June 2008 imposing a fine on ICF for its role in a worldwide cartel for the supply of aluminium fluoride (‘ Aluminium fluoride cartel’). On 9 October 2014, the Court of Justice dismissed ICF’s appeal in its entirety and ordered ICF to bear the costs. In line with several recent reviews, this matter addresses adjudication within a reasonable time, in particular whether any breach of that obligation confers rights in respect of the impugned decision and/or the amount of the...
NOTE—to check whether notification thresholds in Iceland and across the world are met, see: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Icelandic merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Iceland? There have been no recent changes to Iceland’s merger control regime. Nevertheless, in September 2025 the central government signalled its intention to revise the merger provisions of the Competition Act, No 44/2005. A draft bill was released for public consultation. Following stakeholder feedback, the Ministry is reviewing the proposal, and no final bill has yet been introduced in Parliament. It is anticipated that a bill will be brought forward during the current government’s term. Based on the original draft, the envisaged amendments include: Higher turnover thresholds with annual, index-linked increases ...
This table sets out all concluded inquiries by Iceland’s competition authority (the Competition Authority) into suspected cartels, restrictive agreements and abuses of dominance ( Articles 101/102 TFEU and national counterparts) since 2018. Note—only matters that have entered the public domain are contained in this table. 2023 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter 4, Article 10 of Competition Law 44/2005 Case title, firms examined and sector Logistics: Samskip; Eimskip Allegations Collusion Outcome Infringement decision issued—01/09/2023; fines totalling ISK 4.2bn imposed Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/ Chapter 4, Article 11 of Competition Law 44/2005 The Competition Authority made no decisions under Article 102/ Article 11 in 2023. 2022 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter 4, Article......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the point the parties walked away from the transaction on 2 August 2024; it is no longer being maintained. See further, the timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission merger inquiry into the planned acquisition of Air Europa Holdings, S. L. by International Consolidated Airlines Group, S. A. ( M.11109). The deal presents horizontal overlaps in the supply of passenger air transport services. Latest developments On 2 August 2024, the Commission stated it had taken note of the parties’ decision to drop the deal. The withdrawal follows the conclusions of the Commission’s phase II investigation and the parties’ failure to offer appropriate remedies. Parties International Consolidated Airlines Group, S. A. ( IAG) IAG is headquartered in Spain. It is a multinational airline holding company quoted on the London Stock Exchange, with secondary listings on Spanish Stock Exchanges. It controls the...
1. What is the applicable legislation? The rules governing oversight of foreign direct investment in Hungary derive from Act LVII of 2018 on the Supervision of Foreign Investments Violating the National Security Interests of Hungary (the 2018 Act) together with its implementing measure, Government Decree 246/2018 ( XII.17) (the 2018 Governmental Decree), which has applied since 1 January 2019. In addition, Hungary applies FDI control pursuant to Act L of 2025, which elevates the emergency decrees adopted in response to the armed conflict in Ukraine to the rank of an act (the 2025 Act). This FDI framework was first introduced as a temporary shield for Hungarian undertakings during the COVID-19 period and was set out in a series of government decrees; it nevertheless continues to apply, presently through to 31 December 2026, and is now governed by the 2025 Act. At the moment, the two FDI...
NOTE—to check whether notification thresholds in Hungary and worldwide are met, see further: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Hungarian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Hungary? The Hungarian Competition Act underwent a major revision in 2023, after successive amendments took effect on 1 January, 1 February, and 1 September 2023. These changes brought in several notable updates, including: higher notification thresholds a route for voluntary filing of sub‑threshold deals, with the GVH able to call in such transactions within six months after closing an increased daily cap on fines for early implementation (gun jumping) raised maximum penalties for implementing prohibited deals, breaching GVH‑imposed conditions or obligations, and for providing misleading information higher notification fees, with a further...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This case hub records the position as at 22 July 2024, the date the investigation was cancelled following the transaction being abandoned; it is no longer updated. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline UK merger review concerning the proposed acquisition of Serato Audio Research Limited by Alpha Theta Corporation. The deal featured horizontal overlaps in the supply of DJ software for laptop and desktop platforms. Latest developments On 22 July 2024, the CMA cancelled its phase 2 investigation after the parties opted to abandon the proposed transaction. Parties Alpha Theta Corporation ( ATC): A Japan-based supplier of DJ software for laptops and desktops worldwide under the rekordbox brand, and DJ hardware under the Pioneer DJ and Alpha Theta brands. ATC also offers We DJ, a DJ software app for mobile/tablet use only. Serato Audio Research Limited ( Serato): A New...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this preserved case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 4 March 2021; it is no longer maintained. See the published timeline for further details and additional context provided thereafter. Case facts Outline Case C‑362/16 Commission v Fútbol Club Barcelona — an appeal to the Court of Justice directly challenging the General Court’s judgment in Case T‑865/16, which had upheld an action for annulment of the European Commission’s decision that identified tax advantages afforded to Spanish clubs as being in breach of the State aid rules ( SA.29769). Latest development On 4 March 2021, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, allowing the appeal, setting aside the General Court’s judgment, and deciding not to refer the case back to the General Court......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 24 October 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary, and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C‑595/17, Apple Sales International, Apple Inc., and Apple retail France EURL v MJA (acting as liquidator of e Bizcuss.com), concerns a French reference seeking guidance on the reach of Regulation ( EC) No. 44/2001 (the Brussels Regulation) for jurisdiction clauses set in private agreements, when relied upon in private damages claims brought under Article 102 TFEU... Latest developments On 24 October 2018, the Court of Justice gave its judgment in Case C‑595/17, following a reference from the Cour de Cassation in France, addressing whether jurisdiction clauses in private contracts encompass private actions for damages based on Article 102 TFEU under Article 23 of Regulation 44/2001 (the Brussels...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the CAT in Case 1337/1/12/17 See the timeline and commentary for more detail. Case facts Outline A CMA investigation under Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I into a cartel engaged in price‑fixing and market‑sharing for the supply of pre‑cast concrete drainage products ( Case 50299). Latest developments On 18 March 2021, the CMA reported that it had obtained legally binding disqualification orders from Mr Eoin Mc Cann and Mr Francis Mc Cann of FP Mc Cann Limited. Mr Eoin Mc Cann has given an undertaking not to serve as a director of any UK company for 12 years, and Mr Francis Mc Cann has undertaken not to do so for 11 years. Parties Stanton Bonna Concrete Limited and its parent companies Bonna Sabla SA, Consolis Finance SAS, Consolis SAS, and Consolis Group SAS (together, SBC) CPM Group Limited ( CPM) FP Mc Cann Limited ( FP Mc...
This month has brought draft rules reducing merger control thresholds in Germany for businesses placed under a reporting duty after a sector inquiry, the US House of Representatives passing a bill to raise HSR fees for higher-value deals, and the launch of a new simplified merger procedure in Slovenia. Germany—draft Competition Enforcement Act published Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action ( Bundeswirtschaftsministerium, BMWK) has unveiled a draft ‘ Competition Enforcement Act’. Among other measures, it hands the Federal Cartel Office ( FCO) substantial enforcement tools for sector inquiries. A key reform permits the FCO to widen merger filing obligations where an inquiry suggests upcoming concentrations could impede competition in the relevant market. In such circumstances, firms can be required to notify all transactions that satisfy low domestic thresholds (€50m for the acquirer and €500,000 for the target). See further, Germany merger...
This month features a standstill and hold separate order by the Belgian Competition Authority against Proximus for a non-notifiable acquisition under abuse of dominance rules; amendments to Morocco’s merger control thresholds; the publication of draft Swiss legislation introducing, amongst other measures, a new exemption from the notification obligation; and the Federal Trade Commission in the USA proposing changes to the pre‑merger notification form and process. Belgian— BCA imposes standstill and hold separate order under abuse of dominance rules In our March 2023 monthly merger update, we noted that the Belgian Competition Authority ( BCA) had launched an ex post investigation, based on abuse of dominance rules, into Proximus, the incumbent Belgian telecoms operator, following its recent acquisition of EDPnet. The transaction did not meet Belgian merger control thresholds owing to EDPnet’s turnover. This move follows the Court of Justice’s Towercast judgment of 16 March 2023, which...
This month brought a revival of the FTC’s decade-old policy compelling acquiring parties subject to an FTC merger enforcement order (ie consent decree) to secure prior approval for any subsequent transaction for at least 10 years, the withdrawal of vertical merger guidelines and related commentary, and updates designed to streamline its second request process. Internationally, Hungary introduced a merger review exemption for state-owned capital funds, Kuwait revised its notification thresholds, the Egyptian Competition Authority announced its intention to enforce post-merger obligation requirements, and Taiwan tabled proposed amendments to its merger control regime... United States— FTC votes to withdraw Vertical Merger Guidelines and Commentary On 15 September 2021, under the new leadership of Chair Lina Khan, the Federal Trade Commission held its third open meeting. As anticipated, the FTC voted 3–2, along party lines, to withdraw approval of: (i) the Vertical Merger Guidelines (...
This table sets out concluded investigations by Germany’s competition authority (the Bundeskartellamt— BKa) into alleged cartels, anti-competitive agreements, abuses of dominance ( Articles 101/102 TFEU and national counterparts) and sector inquiries since 2015. Note—only decisions placed in the public domain appear here. 2025 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/ Section 53 of the German Competition Act Case name, companies under investigation and industry Comparison portals — Check24 Issues Restrictive agreements — MFN clauses Developments Commitments accepted — 24/02/2026 Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/ Section 19 of the German Competition Act No Article 102 TFEU/s19 decisions have been issued by the BKa in 2026. 2025 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/ Section 53 of the German Competition Act Case name, companies under investigation and industry Road repair — 12 undertakings (listed here) — Sonova Consumer electronics — Sennheiser — Sonova Issues Restrictive agreements — bid rigging and...
This table sets out all concluded investigations by Finland’s competition regulator, the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority ( FCCA), into suspected cartels, restrictive agreements and abuses of dominance ( Articles 101/102 TFEU and national counterparts) since 2018. Only inquiries that were publicly disclosed are shown. 2025 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter 2, section 5 of the Competition Act The FCCA adopted no decisions under Article 101 TFEU/ Section 5 in 2025. Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/ Chapter 2, section 7 of the Competition Act The FCCA adopted no decisions under Article 102/ Section 7 in 2025. 2024 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter 2, section 5 of the Competition Act The FCCA issued no decisions under Article 101 TFEU/ Section 5 in 2024. Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/ Chapter 2, section 7 of the Competition Act The FCCA issued no decisions under Article 102/ Section 7 in...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 13 December 2012; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline A national reference from the French Cour de cassation to the Court of Justice seeking a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU on the application of the Commission’s Notice on Agreements of Minor Importance (the ‘ De Minimis Notice’) and on whether the stated market‑share thresholds are binding upon national authorities. Parties Expedia Inc Autorité de la concurrence ( French Competition Authority) Cour de cassation ( France) Market(s) Online travel agency services within France. Background to reference The Cour de cassation sought the ruling in proceedings it was hearing between Expedia, the international online travel agency, and the French Competition Authority. Expedia had set up a joint venture, ‘ Agence VSC’, with Société...
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
