Featured documents
This Practice Note outlines the law concerning criminal recklessness. The subjective test for recklessness Certain statutory and common law offences allow the prosecution to prove mens rea through ‘recklessness’. Put simply, recklessness is where the accused takes an unjustified risk that results in unlawful harm or damage. The House of Lords in R v G reaffirmed the subjective approach to recklessness. Before R v G, two distinct tests were used, depending on the offence charged: Subjective recklessness from R v Cunningham: the prosecution had to establish that the accused personally foresaw the risk. Objective recklessness from R v Caldwell: the prosecution only needed to show that the risk would have been obvious to a reasonable person, without proving the accused themselves foresaw it. In R v G, the House of Lords concluded that the objective test could operate unfairly where a defendant did not foresee the
This Practice Note examines the remedy of rescission, explaining when and in what manner a contract can be unwound (at common law, in equity and under statute) and thereby terminated and brought to an end. It covers the consequences and effects of rescission, the principal grounds for setting aside an agreement (misrepresentation, mistake, undue influence, duress, non‑disclosure, fiduciary misdealing and bribery) and the main obstacles to claiming rescission—affirmation, the intervention of third‑party rights and the impossibility of restitution. For further guidance on rescission in the context of misrepresentation, see Practice Note: Misrepresentation—rescission as a remedy. There are many ways in which a contract may reach its end; see: Terminating contracts—how and when a contract ends—overview for a brief and accessible summary, with links to the related further practical guidance, including Practice Note: Termination and expiry of contracts. For a table
What is a res judicata? A res judicata is a determination by a court or tribunal with jurisdiction over the cause of action and the parties, which finally disposes of the issues decided so they cannot be litigated again by those bound, save on appeal. Final judgments entered by default or by consent fall within this concept, whereas rulings on purely procedural points and any decision lacking finality do not. The doctrine’s aim is to bring litigation to an end and shield parties from being harassed by the same dispute twice. in personam—binds the parties and their privies in rem—binds all persons, privy or otherwise (ie a judgment binding the whole world) A party may rely on res judicata: as an estoppel to defeat an opponent’s claim or defence; and/or as the basis of their own claim or
The offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent can be tried solely in the Crown Court on indictment. Elements of the offence Under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (OATPA 1861), the prosecution must establish that the defendant unlawfully and maliciously: wounded with the intention of causing GBH, or caused GBH with that intention, or wounded intending to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of any person, or caused GBH intending to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of any person ‘Unlawfully’ and ‘maliciously’ Unlawfully The wounding or causing of GBH must be unlawful. Such conduct may be lawful if used: in self-defence in defence of another in defence of property for the prevention of crime where the victim gave express or implied consent For further information on these defences, see below:
Most recent Practice notes
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 4 October 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission review of the planned purchase of Faiveley Transport by Wabtec ( Case M.7801). The deal entailed horizontal overlaps across EEA markets for railway equipment systems and subsystems, with a particular focus on sintered friction materials for trains. Latest developments On 4 October 2016, the Commission approved the merger subject to conditions. As part of these commitments, the parties will sell Faiveley’s sintered friction materials unit, Faiveley Transport Gennevilliers ( FTG), thereby eliminating any overlap between Wabtec and Faiveley in the affected market. Parties Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation ( Wabtec) is a US-based company operating worldwide in the manufacture and supply of railway equipment, including complete brake systems, their subsystems, and pantographs. In the EEA, Wabtec holds...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub records the position as at the decision of 4 February 2016; it is no longer maintained. See the timeline, commentary and related cases for further information Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the proposed acquisition by Liberty Global of BASE Belgium ( Case M.7637). The deal features horizontal and vertical overlaps within Belgium’s telecommunications market. Latest developments The Commission cleared the transaction, subject to commitments, on 4 February 2016. Under these commitments Liberty Global: will divest BASE’s 50% stake in Mobile Vikings, an MVNO that runs on BASE’s network, to Belgian broadcaster Medialaan transfer a portion of BASE’s customer base to Medialaan— BASE and Medialaan currently have an agreement under which BASE sells mobile services under the JIM Mobile brand, owned by Medialaan; Liberty Global will move JIM Mobile customers to Medialaan has entered into an...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 1 March 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts The European Commission assessed Essilor’s planned acquisition of Luxottica ( Case M.8394). The merger presented both horizontal and vertical connections across the optical lenses and eyewear markets. Latest developments After a phase II inquiry, the Commission issued an unconditional clearance on 1 March 2018. Parties Essilor, a French-based business, manufactures ophthalmic lenses and ophthalmic optical equipment. Its leading brands are: Varilux Crizal Transitions Eyezen Xperio Essilor also provides optical machines, optical instruments and eyewear, and operates optician retail activities, predominantly outside Europe. Luxottica, an Italian-based company, designs and markets premium, luxury and sports eyewear, including Ray- Ban, Oakley and Persol, plus over 15 licensed brands such as Armani, Chanel, Dolce & Gabbana, Prada and Versace. Luxottica also operates optician retail...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position as at the decision date of 5 May 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline Case facts Overview of the European Commission’s merger probe into setting up a full‑function joint venture uniting DE Master Blenders with Mondelēz International’s coffee operations. The Commission referred the deal to a phase II review on 15/12/2014. Approval was granted, subject to commitments, on 05/05/2015. Parties Douwe Egberts Master Blenders 1753 B. V. ( DEMB) is a Netherlands‑based coffee and tea company. It supplies coffee and tea across Europe, Brazil, Australasia and Asia, and owns brands including L' Or, Douwe Egberts, Senseo and Merrild. DEMB also runs coffee houses in the Netherlands. Its parent is Acorn Holdings B. V. ( AHBV), a Dutch company owned by an investor group led by JAB Holding Company s.a...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 21 March 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related cases Case facts Outline European Commission merger review into Bayer’s proposed purchase of Monsanto ( Case M.8084). The deal features horizontal overlaps in: the supply of pesticides, notably non-selective herbicides the supply and licensing of vegetable seeds the supply of traits The merger would create the broadest pesticides portfolio and the strongest global positions in seeds and traits, resulting in the industry’s largest integrated player... Latest developments On 21 March 2018, the Commission granted conditional approval, subject to commitments. To resolve overlap concerns across seeds, pesticides and digital agriculture, the Commission accepted a significant divestment package... Parties Bayer Aktiengesellschaft ( Bayer) is a diversified German business engaged in the development and supply of...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the decision date of 6 September 2018 and is no longer being updated. For additional detail, see the timeline and commentary. Case facts Summary of the European Commission’s merger review of Apple’s proposed purchase of Shazam ( Case M.8788). The deal raised non-horizontal issues linked to music streaming services. As the transaction did not reach the EU Merger Regulation thresholds, it was referred to the Commission under Article 22. Latest developments On 6 September 2018, following an in-depth phase II assessment, the Commission cleared the transaction unconditionally. Parties Apple is a US-based global technology company that designs, manufactures and markets mobile communication and media devices, portable digital music players and personal computers. It also distributes and sells digital content online via the ‘i Tunes Store’, the ‘ App Store’, ‘i Bookstore’ and the ‘ Mac App Store’. Of...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 16 June 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline of the European Commission’s merger inquiry into setting up a full‑function joint venture uniting the online repertoires of three collective rights management organisations, PRS for Music Limited, Föreningen Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå u.p.a and Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs‑ und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte. There are horizontal overlaps in the markets for the licensing of online musical works and administrative services supplied to ‘ Option 3 publishers’. Latest developments The Commission cleared the transaction subject to commitments on 16 June 2015 after a phase II investigation. The Commission has accepted the following commitments: PRSf M will not use its control over the performing rights it manages to compel ‘ Option 3 publishers’ or their service...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 24 July 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into vertical constraints on online sales of consumer electronic products imposed by Pioneer ( Case AT.40182). Latest developments On 24 July 2018, the Commission adopted its infringement decision against Pioneer, imposing a €10.173m fine (following an ‘informal settlement’), for setting fixed or minimum resale prices for its online retailers in breach of Article 101 TFEU. Parties Pioneer is a Japan-based company that manufactures digital entertainment products. Background The Commission began its investigation in February 2017 on the basis of information obtained during its e-commerce sector inquiry. Market(s) Markets for the manufacture, distribution and retail of consumer electronic products, in particular digital entertainment products......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this case hub sets out the position as at the date of the decision on 23 May 2024; it is longer maintained. See the timeline for further details. Case facts Outline of the European Commission’s Article 101 TFEU probe into whether Mondelēz International, Inc curtailed competition across several national markets for chocolate, biscuits and coffee by obstructing cross‑border trade in these items between EU Member States ( AT.40632). Latest development On 23 May 2024, the Commission adopted an infringement decision and levied a €337.5m fine for: (i) taking part in anti‑competitive agreements and concerted practices designed to limit cross‑border trade in numerous chocolate, biscuit and coffee products; and (ii) abusing a dominant position in certain national markets for the sale of chocolate tablets. Parties Mondelēz International, Inc ( Mondelēz): headquartered in the US, Mondelēz is among the world’s largest manufacturers of chocolate and biscuit...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 12 July 2022; it is no longer updated. See further: timeline, Case facts, Outline. European Commission Article 101 TFEU probe into a cartel affecting sales of metal cans and closures in Germany ( AT.40522). Latest development On 12 July 2022, the Commission imposed fines of €31.5m on Crown and Silgan for infringing Article 101 TFEU by illicitly sharing commercially sensitive information and aligning their market approaches and co-ordinating aspects of their commercial strategies for sales of metal cans and closures in Germany. Parties Crown Cork & Seal Deutschland Holdings Gmb H and Crown Holdings Inc (together, Crown) Silgan Holdings Austria Gmb H, Silgan Holdings Inc., Silgan International Holdings B. V., Silgan Metal Packaging Distribution Gmb H, and Silgan White Cap Manufacturing Gmb H (together,...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the situation as at the decision date of 20 December 2012 and is no longer updated. Case facts Outline European Commission probe under Article 101 TFEU concerning Rio Tinto Alcan (reference COMP/39.230) Latest developments Commitments were formally accepted by the European Commission on 20 December 2012......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this hub records the position as at the decision date of 24 June 2024; it is no longer maintained. See also: timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission inquiry under Article 101 TFEU and/or Article 102 TFEU into the use of Apple’s App Store by developers offering apps that directly compete with apps or services supplied by Apple (excluding music streaming apps or ebooks/audiobooks apps, for which separate proceedings were initiated in cases AT.40437 and AT.40652). Latest development On 24 June 2024, the Commission stated it had closed the investigation......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 13 January 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission merger inquiry into London Stock Exchange Group plc’s planned combination with the Refinitiv Business ( M.9564) transaction. The planned deal gives rise to horizontal and vertical overlaps across markets for trading and clearing of multiple financial instruments, and within financial data product offerings ( M.9564) in question. Latest developments On 13 January 2020, the Commission also approved the transaction subject to commitments. To resolve the Commission’s concerns, it accepted commitments proposed by London Stock Exchange Group. These commitments range from divesting the Borsa Italiana group to an appropriate purchaser ( LSEG has already concluded a sale and purchase agreement with Euronext) to behavioural and access undertakings lasting for a ten-year...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 28 May 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases Case facts Outline of the European Commission’s merger review of Hutchison 3G UK’s proposed purchase of Telefónica Ireland ( Case M.6992). Latest developments The Commission approved the deal on 28 May 2014, subject to commitments in two parts: To enable near‑term entry by two MVNOs, with the option for one to evolve into a full MNO via later spectrum acquisition— H3G will provide up to 30% of the combined network’s capacity to two MVNOs in Ireland for a fixed fee through a dedicated ‘pipe’, which the Commission considered more suitable for Ireland than the prevalent pay‑as‑you‑go model elsewhere in Europe. In addition, five spectrum blocks will be divested from 01/01/2016 for ten years. To ensure Eircom...
CASE HUB (note–appeal lodged in Case T- 175/12 Deutsche Börse v Commission) ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position as at the decision of 1 February 2012; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline: European Commission merger investigation into the proposed merger between Deutsche Börse and NYSE Euronext ( Case M.6166). The Commission blocked the transaction on 01/02/2012. Parties Deutsche Börse and NYSE Euronext Deutsche Börse is a German-based group active across all aspects of cash and derivatives markets. It runs the Frankfurt Stock Exchange and holds the majority of Eurex, which operates the Eurex Deutschland derivatives exchange. NYSE Euronext is a US-based company, dual-listed in the US and France. It operates multiple stock exchanges worldwide. Its four principal divisions are cash listing services, cash trading services, derivatives trading and clearing services, and information services and technology services. In Europe, NYSE runs...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Case T- 334/19 ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 20/03/2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission investigation under Article 102 TFEU into Google ( Ad Sense) concerning online search advertising intermediation (case number AT.40411). Latest developments On 20 March 2019, the Commission adopted an infringement decision finding that Google misused its dominant position in the market for online search advertising intermediation through its “ Ad Sense for Search” offering. The Commission levied a €1.49bn fine on Google. Parties Google and its parent company, Alphabet. Google runs an online search service and, alongside it, a range of other services, including the “ Ad Sense for Search” intermediation service. Websites such as newspaper portals, blogs, or travel aggregators often include an embedded search tool. When a user...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 13/05/2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission investigation under Article 102 TFEU into AB In Bev’s obstruction of beer imports into Belgium (case AT.40134). Latest developments On 13 May 2019, the Commission issued an infringement decision concluding that AB In Bev abused its dominant position on Belgium’s beer market and levied a €200.41m fine. Parties Anheuser- Busch In Bev SA ( AB In Bev) is the world’s largest beer brewer. Background The Commission opened proceedings in June 2016. National competition authorities, the European Parliament and consumers had long highlighted concerns that prices for food and drink can differ markedly between neighbouring EU Member States. On 30 November 2017, the Commission sent a Statement of Objections to AB In Bev, setting out its...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Case T- 19/25 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub records the position as at the final decision of 31 October 2024; it is no longer updated. See also timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU probe into Teva, examining whether it abused a dominant position by pursuing conduct designed to postpone competition to its multiple sclerosis treatment, Copaxone ( AT.40588). Latest development On 31 October 2024, the Commission adopted an infringement decision and imposed fines totalling €462.6m on Teva. Parties Teva is a global pharmaceutical group headquartered in Israel, operating through a number of subsidiaries within the EEA. Background In October 2019, the Commission carried out unannounced inspections at the premises of several Teva subsidiaries in the EEA, followed by continued inspections at the......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the decision date of 5 March 2013 and is no longer updated. See the timeline and related cases for more detail. Case facts Outline European Commission investigation under Article 102 TFEU into OPCOM/the Romanian power exchange (case COMP/39.984). The Commission adopted its infringement decision on 05/03/2014, imposing a €1.031m fine. Latest developments On 5 March 2014, the Commission delivered its infringement decision and fined OPCOM and Transelectrica €1.031m, with the two companies held jointly liable. Parties OPCOM and Transelectrica. OPCOM operates Romania’s only power exchange and is 100% owned by Transelectrica. Transelectrica is the operator of the Romanian electricity transmission system. Market(s) Electricity trading on the Romanian wholesale market, namely operation of the power exchange and the facilitation of spot electricity trading in Romania......
CASE HUB NOTE—appeals lodged before the General Court in Cases T- 336/14, T- 441/21, T- 456/21 and T- 462/21, T- 449/21, T- 453/21, T- 455/21 and T- 561/21 See further: timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU inquiry into the sharing of commercially sensitive information and the alignment of trading strategies across the primary and secondary markets for European government bonds ( Case AT.40324). Latest development On 20 May 2021, the Commission adopted its infringement decision, issuing fines totalling €371m against three banks ( Nomura, UBS and Uni Credit). A further four banks were found to have infringed Article 101 TFEU but received no fines (for the reasons outlined below). The allocation is: Nomura—€129.57m UBS—€172.38m (including a 45% reduction for co-operation) Uni Credit—€69.44m Bank of America—no fine (as its infringement fell outside the limitation period for imposing fines) ...
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
