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 case hub records the position as at the decision date of 12 December 2016; it is no longer being maintained. See the timeline and commentary for more... Case facts Outline: an Article 101 TFEU inquiry by the European Commission into a cartel in the market for rechargeable lithium‑ion batteries ( AT.39904). The conduct included price‑fixing and exchanging information. Latest development On 12 December 2016, the Commission issued its infringement decision after four manufacturers settled and accepted their participation in the cartel. The fines imposed on the four manufacturers were: Samsung SDI – full immunity (thus avoiding a €57,748,000 fine) Sony – €29,802,000, reflecting a 50% reduction for leniency ......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 5 March 2014; it is no longer maintained. See the timeline, commentary and related cases for further detail. Case facts Outline European Commission investigation under Article 101 TFEU into cartel conduct by two major spot power exchanges ( COMP/39.952). Latest developments On 5 March 2014, the Commission issued its enforcement decision, confirming that EPEX and NPS had settled with the Commission. The combined penalty totalled €5.979m, apportioned as €3.651m for EPEX and €2.328m for NPS. Each company received a 10% reduction in its fine under the Commission’s settlement procedure......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This case hub records the position as at the decision of 21 September 2023; it is no longer updated. See the timeline for more. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU inquiry into a cartel involving the sale of military hand grenades ( AT.40706)......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position as at the date of the decision of 22 November 2017; it is no longer maintained. See also the timeline and commentary Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into four cartels relating to the supply of automotive occupant safety systems (car seatbelts, airbags and steering wheels) to Japanese car manufacturers ( Toyota, Suzuki and Honda) within the EEA. The cartels involved co-ordinating prices or markets and exchanging information Latest development On 22 November 2017, the Commission adopted its infringement decision after five manufacturers settled with the Commission and admitted participation in the four cartels. Combined fines of €34m were imposed......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date to end the investigation on 28 April 2017; it is no longer maintained. See more: timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts ARCHIVE 28/04/2017 Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU probe concerning a cartel within the automotive exhaust systems market sector ( AT.40170). Latest development On 28 April 2017, the Commission ended its inquiry for administrative grounds......
CASE HUB Appeals filed at the General Court in the following matters (see Cases T-251/12 EGL and Others v Commission, et al). ARCHIVED – this case hub captures the position as at the 28 March 2012 decision and is not being updated; see the timeline. It is no longer maintained. Case T-270/12 ( Panalpina) Case T-267/12 ( Deutsche Bahn) Case T-265/12 ( Schenker) Case T-264/12 ( UTi) Case T-254/12 ( Kuehna+Nagel) Case T-251/12 ( EGL) Case facts European Commission Article 101 TFEU probe into price‑fixing cartels in international air freight forwarding services ( COMP/39.462). Outline The investigation addressed collusive conduct impacting international air freight forwarding under Article 101 TFEU. Latest developments On 28 March 2012, the Commission adopted its infringement decision and levied fines totalling €169m. Deutsche Post, together with its subsidiaries DHL and Exel, obtained immunity from financial...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision dated 21 February 2020 and is no longer maintained. For more detail, see the timeline, commentary and related cases... Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU probe into whether hotel accommodation contracts between the largest European tour operators ( Kuoni, REWE, Thomas Cook and TUI) and Meliá Hotels International S. A. contained terms that unlawfully differentiated between customers on the basis of nationality or country of residence ( AT.40528)... Latest development On 21 February 2020, the Commission adopted an infringement decision against Meliá Hotels International S. A., imposing a €6,678,000 fine for concluding agreements with tour operators that curtailed both active and passive sales of hotel accommodation. In light of cooperation provided during the inquiry, Meliá received a 30% reduction. Following an assessment of the evidence and the case...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 29 January 2014; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline European Commission probe under Article 101 TFEU into a cartel in the flexible polyurethane foam market (case reference COMP/39.801). Fines of €114m levied on four firms for a price-fixing cartel. Latest development The Commission issued fines of €114m on 29 January 2014. All companies settled with the Commission. The penalties were as follows: Vita obtained complete immunity from penalties by alerting the Commission to the cartel’s existence and providing full co-operation throughout the inquiry......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 21 February 2018; it is not being maintained. See the timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU inquiry into a cartel in the deep sea transport of vehicles ( AT.40009). The conduct concerned price coordination, customer allocation, and the exchange of information. Latest development On 21 February 2018, the Commission adopted an infringement decision after the five carriers settled with it and admitted involvement in the cartel. Fines totalling €395m were imposed......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at 21 February 2018, the date of the decision; it is no longer maintained. See also the timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU probe into two cartels concerning braking systems. The cartels covered price or market coordination alongside exchanges of information. Latest development On 21 February 2018, the Commission adopted its infringement decision after three suppliers reached a settlement with it and admitted participation in the two cartels. Combined penalties of €75,426,000m were imposed......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This case hub is archived and captures the position as at the decision date of 15 July 2015; it is not currently being updated. See the timeline. Case facts Outline The European Commission conducted an Article 101 TFEU probe into a cartel connected to the marketing of cargo ‘blocktrains’ ( AT.40098). Conduct included division of clientele, exchange of sensitive information and coordination of prices. On 15/07/2015 the Commission adopted its decision and levied fines amounting to €49m. Latest development On 15 July 2015 the Commission stated that, following a settlement, it had adopted its enforcement decision against Express Interfracht (a subsidiary of Österreichische Bundesbahnen), Schenker (a subsidiary of Deutsche Bahn) and Kühne+Nagel, imposing combined penalties of €49.154m; Kühne+Nagel obtained full immunity from fines......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision to accept commitments on 11 July 2024; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission investigation under Article 102 TFEU into whether Apple misused a dominant position in i OS mobile wallet markets on i OS devices ( AT.40452). Latest development On 11 July 2024, the Commission accepted commitments offered by Apple (see details below), thereby closing the investigation. In parallel, it also issued a second decision ending its inquiry into online restrictions and the alleged denial of access to Apple Pay for certain rival products, which the Commission had opened in June 2020. That second decision therefore concluded all proceedings concerning the UK, which no longer forms part of the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position as at the decision date of 15 May 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into Microsoft Corporation’s proposed purchase of Activision Blizzard, Inc. ( M.10646). The deal features horizontal overlaps in the supply of games consoles. Latest developments On 15 May 2023, the Commission approved the transaction subject to commitments. The Commission accepted a set of remedies from Microsoft Corporation to address its competition concerns. Parties Microsoft Corporation ( Microsoft): A global technology enterprise headquartered in Redmond, Washington, US. Microsoft provides a broad array of products and services through three operating segments: (i) Productivity and Business Processes; (ii) Intelligent Cloud; and (iii) More Personal Computing. Microsoft develops and publishes games for PCs, games consoles and mobile devices, and also distributes games for PCs and consoles. It...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the decision date of 9 September 2014 and is no longer being updated. See the timeline and related/relevant cases for further detail. Case facts Outline: European Commission phase II merger inquiry into Cemex’s proposed purchase of selected Holcim assets in Spain ( Case M.7054). The probe was opened after Spain made an Article 22 referral. The deal concerns two of Spain’s foremost cement suppliers. Latest developments The Commission approved the deal without conditions on 9 September 2014. It had sent the merger to an in-depth, phase II review on 23 April 2014, and, on 28 July 2014, extended the phase II deadline by five working days under Article 10(3)(2). Commitments were filed in phase I on 28 March 2014. The case did not reach the EUMR thresholds and was therefore notified to the national...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C- 211/20 P and C- 315/18 ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment of 12 March 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline An action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 4 July 2016, which found that aid granted to three Valencia football clubs constituted unlawful State aid ( Case SA.36387). Latest developments On 12 March 2020, the General Court delivered its judgment, upholding the appeals and thus annulling the Commission’s decision. The Court held that the Commission committed several manifest errors when instructing the clubs to repay the support each had received. The General Court criticised, among other matters, the Commission’s omission to assess all available evidence, its reliance on incorrect material, and the use of...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 19 September 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Case T- 386/14 RENV FIH Holding and FIH Erhvervsbank v Commission—proceedings seeking annulment of the European Commission’s approval of restructuring aid granted by Denmark in 2012 to the FIH banking group, linked to a restructuring plan ( Case SA.34445). The matter was returned to the General Court after the Court of Justice’s ruling in Case C- 579/16. Latest developments On 19 September 2019, the General Court delivered its judgment, upheld the action and set aside the Commission’s decision. It concluded that the Commission committed errors when computing the amount of aid Denmark conferred on FIH. Parties Applicants: FIH Holding A/ S is the ultimate parent of FIH Erhvervsbank A/ S and its...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 19 December 2019; it is no longer being updated. See the timeline for details... Case facts Outline Case T- 812/14 RENV BPC Lux 2 and Others v Commission — an application seeking annulment of the European Commission’s decision not to object to aid granted by the Portuguese authorities for the resolution of Banco Espirito Santo SA ( Case SA.39250), remitted to the General Court following the Court of Justice’s ruling in Case C- 544/17... Latest developments On 19 December 2019, the General Court delivered its judgment and dismissed the action as inadmissible... Parties Applicants: BPC Lux 2 Sàrl (together with various other legal persons) ( BPC), subordinated creditors of Banco Espírito Santo ( BES), holding Lower Tier 2 Bonds... Defendant: European...
Set out below are European Commission outcomes on in‑depth State aid probes and completed sector inquiries dating from 2016. The latest in‑depth cases are listed in the EU State aid decisions—ongoing cases tracker. For appeals before the General Court, consult General Court State aid appeals—ongoing cases tracker; for Court of Justice appeals, see Court of Justice State aid appeals—ongoing cases tracker; and for national references before the Court of Justice concerning State aid, see Court of Justice State aid national references—ongoing cases tracker. In-depth investigations—2026 Regional aid to PCAE ( Peugeot Citroën Automóviles España S. A.) ( SA.49579) — Spain; sector: motor vehicle manufacturing; aid: direct grant. Decisions: withdrawal of notification—03/03/2026; opening of formal investigation ( Art 4(4))—01/07/2019. In-depth investigations—2025 Modification de l'aide et du plan de restructuration de Corsair ( SA.109662) — France; sector: aviation; aid: direct grant and tax relief....
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived hub reflects the position at the date the investigation was closed on 12 March 2021; it is not maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline: European Commission merger investigation into Telefónica Deutschland’s planned acquisition of E‑ Plus ( Case M.7018). The transaction involves horizontal overlaps in the German mobile telecommunications market, where the parties are two of the four operators. Latest developments On 12 March 2021, the Commission ended its probe without taking action. Parties Telefónica Deutschland and E‑ Plus. Both are mobile network operators ( MNOs), supplying mobile telecommunications to end consumers in Germany, as well as in related markets such as the wholesale of network access and call origination. Telefónica Deutschland is a subsidiary of Telefónica SA, headquartered in Spain. E‑ Plus is the German subsidiary of the Dutch operator Koninklijke KPN NV (...
CASE HUB (third party appeals against rejection of complaint to Commission alleging non-compliance with commitments in Cases T- 305/15 Airdata v Commission, T- 307/15 1&1 Telecom v Commission, T- 43/16 1&1 Telecom v Commission and T- 885/16 Mass Response Service v Commission–see Cases T- 43/16, T- 884/16, and T- 885/16 1&1 Telecom v Commission et al—third party appeals against remedy implementation in Telefónica Deutschland/ E- Plus [ Archived]) ARCHIVED – this case hub records the position as at the 2 July 2014 decision date and is no longer maintained. See the timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases for more. Case facts Outline European Commission merger inquiry into the intended acquisition of E- Plus by Telefónica Deutschland ( Case M.7018). The deal gives rise to horizontal overlaps in Germany’s mobile telecommunications market, where the parties represent two of the four...
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
