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 sets out the position as at the decision date of 20 August 2018 and is no longer maintained or updated. For further detail, see timeline and commentary. It reflects the position at that date alone. No further updates follow. Case facts Outline of the European Commission’s merger review of the planned combination between Praxair and Linde ( Case M.8480). The deal raised horizontal overlaps across markets for the provision of gases. Latest developments On 20 August 2018, the Commission granted conditional approval after an in‑depth phase II inquiry. Under the remedies, the parties committed to: sell Praxair’s entire EEA gas business (covering industrial, medical, speciality gases and helium); dispose of Praxair’s interest in a JV named SIAD to the co‑shareholder, Flow Fin; and transfer further helium sourcing agreements to resolve helium‑related competition issues on a world‑wide...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Case T- 585/20 Polwax v Commission ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the decision of 14 July 2020 and is no longer updated. See also the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission merger review of the planned acquisition of Grupa Lotos by PKN Orlen ( Case M.9014). The deal chiefly featured overlaps in the refining and marketing of fuels (including retail) and associated products in Poland. Latest developments On 14 July 2020, the Commission cleared the merger subject to commitments. To meet the Commission’s concerns, PKN Orlen proposed seven commitments. These combined divestments with other measures, including constructing a new jet-fuel terminal near Szcescein and releasing most of the capacity booked by Grupa Lotos at independent storage depots. Parties PKN Orlen ( PKN): PKN is a Polish integrated oil and gas company. It owns one of the two...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the 10 October 2014 decision; it is no longer being maintained. For further detail, see the timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. NOTE – the General Court annulled this decision on 26 October 2017 in Case T‑394/15 KPN v Commission. A second notification to the Commission was lodged in April 2018. Case facts Outline: European Commission phase II merger investigation into Liberty Global’s intended acquisition of Ziggo ( Case M.7000). The deal presents horizontal overlaps across the Dutch markets for pay‑ TV and telecommunications, where the parties are two of the leading players, and the only two rivals for the wholesale supply of premium pay‑ TV services. Latest developments The Commission cleared the transaction, subject to commitments, on 10 October 2014......
CASE HUB (appeal against Commission's clearance decision lodged by third party in Case T- 19/17 Fastweb v Commission) ARCHIVED – this case hub shows the position at the date of the decision of 1 September 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts An inquiry by the European Commission into a planned joint venture combining the telecoms operations of Hutchison 3G Italy (3 Italia) and Vimpel Com ( WIND) in Italy ( Case M.7758). The deal entails horizontal overlaps across the Italian mobile telecoms market and other telecom markets. Latest developments On 1 September 2016, the Commission approved the deal subject to commitments. Under these commitments, the parties will divest assets to the French telecoms operator Iliad, enabling the creation of a new mobile network operator ( MNO) in Italy. The commitments include: the sale to the new MNO of a...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the decision date of 8 January 2016 and is no longer updated. See the timeline, commentary and related cases for more detail... Case facts Outline European Commission merger review of the proposed purchase by Fed Ex Corporation of TNT Express ( Case M.7630). The parties overlap horizontally in the small parcel delivery market... Latest developments On 8 January 2016, the Commission approved the deal without conditions... Parties Fed Ex Corporation ( Fed Ex) is a US-based business (headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee) offering small parcel delivery, freight forwarding and cargo transport services worldwide via an integrated global network... TNT Express ( TNT) is a Netherlands-based business supplying small parcel delivery, air and ground freight and freight forwarding services across the globe... Background The deal was announced on 7 April 2015, with Fed Ex agreeing to acquire all of TNT. The agreed price is...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in T- 680/20 ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 1 October 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline: European Commission merger probe into Novelis Inc.’s planned purchase of Aleris Corporation ( Case M.9076). The deal featured overlaps across markets supplying various semi‑fabricated aluminium products. Latest developments On 1 October 2019, the Commission authorised the deal subject to remedies. To resolve the Commission’s concerns, the parties committed to sell Aleris’ European aluminium automotive body sheets business. Parties Novelis Inc ( Novelis) is a worldwide producer of semi‑fabricated aluminium products. Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, USA, it runs 24 plants across North America, South America, Europe and Asia. Novelis is owned by Hindalco Industries Limited, an India‑based supplier of aluminium and copper. Aleris...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the decision dated 7 November 2012; it is no longer updated. For more detail, see the case facts and timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission merger review of Outokumpu’s proposed acquisition of Inoxum ( Case M.6471). Parties Outokumpu and Inoxum Outokumpu is a Finland-based group that manufactures and supplies stainless steel products worldwide. Inoxum is the stainless steel division of the German company Thyssen Krupp AG, producing and distributing stainless steel and high-alloy products. Market(s) Cold rolled stainless steel products. Stainless steel is a steel alloy containing a minimum of 10.5% chromium and a maximum of 1.2% carbon. The addition of chromium imparts its stainless characteristics. Stainless steel is highly resistant to corrosion......
CASE HUB ( NOTE—on 30 May 2018, the Commission once more approved, for the second time, the proposed acquisition of Ziggo by Liberty Global ( Case M.7000). KPN therefore lodged a further appeal against that approval before the General Court in Case T-691/18, KPN v Commission.) ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position as at the date of the judgment of 26 October 2017; it is no longer maintained or updated. See further, the timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Third party proceedings before the General Court seeking to annul the European Commission’s decision to approve, with commitments, Liberty Global’s takeover of Ziggo. Latest development On 26 October 2017, the General Court delivered its judgment, in which it upheld the third party action and annulled the Commission’s decision approving, subject to commitments, Liberty Global’s acquisition of Ziggo ( Case M.7000). The Court concluded that the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 6 February 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline Proceedings before the General Court sought the annulment of the Commission decision of 28 April 2011, which dismissed a complaint lodged by Confederación Española de Estaciones de Servicio ( CEES) and Asociación de Gestores de Estaciones de Servicio ( AGES). The associations alleged that Repsol CPP had not observed binding commitments accepted under Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003, linked to its long‑term supply and exclusivity arrangements with service stations in Spain. CEES and AGES, together representing 45% of Spanish service stations, targeted Repsol, Cepsa and AOP (an oil industry trade association) in their complaint. In the impugned decision, the Commission rejected those claims after concluding, in particular, that there were...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal brought before the Court of Justice in Case C‑563/19 P ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment of 23 May 2019 and is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline An appeal was brought against the Commission’s infringement decision concerning the car battery recycling cartel ( Case AT.40018), seeking a reduction of the penalties imposed on Recyclex and other undertakings within the same corporate group. Outcome On 23 May 2019, the General Court dismissed the appeal in full. It held in particular that Recyclex was not eligible for any additional reductions under the Leniency Notice, and that the Commission was entitled to uplift all cartelists’ fines by 10% to reflect that the car battery recycling cartel was a purchasing...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archive records the position as at the judgment dated 28 June 2016 and is no longer updated. For more details, consult the timeline and related/relevant cases. NOTE—appeal lodged by Telefónica at Court of Justice in Case C- 487/16 Case facts Applications were brought before the General Court to annul and/or cut the fines arising from the Commission’s decision of 23 January 2013, which found a breach of Article 101 TFEU and levied individual penalties of €12.29m and €66.89m on Portugal Telecom and Telefónica. The sanctions stemmed from an agreed non-compete provision, said to amount to a market-sharing arrangement across the Iberian telecommunication markets. Outline On 28 June 2016, the General Court largely rejected the actions by Portugal Telecom and Telefónica. It affirmed that the Commission was not required, contrary to the companies’ submissions, to carry out an in-depth assessment of the structure of the markets...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeals filed before the General Court against the Commission’s 2015 decision in Cases T-522/15, T-523/15, T-530/15 and T-582/15 NOTE—appeal filed before the General Court against the Commission’s 2020 decision in Case T-130/21 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub shows the position as at 24 June 2015 and is no longer maintained. See the timeline for more information. Case facts Outline The European Commission conducted an Article 101 TFEU probe into a cartel in the retail food packaging trays markets ( AT.39563). On 24/06/2015 it adopted its decision, imposing fines amounting to €115.865m. Appeals were brought before the General Court. Latest developments On 17 December 2020, the Commission issued a re-adopted decision against CCPL, imposing €9.4m in fines on three CCPL Group entities. This addresses the procedural shortcomings identified by the General Court in Case T-522/15, which annulled the fines on those three CCPL companies due to...
The Technology Transfer Block Exemption ( TTBE, Regulation 316/2014) offers a safe harbour for certain intellectual property rights ( IPRs) licences—technology transfer agreements—that might otherwise restrict competition (see also: The technology transfer block exemption). If an IP-related arrangement falls outside the TTBE, this does not automatically imply a breach of Article 101 TFEU. First, other block exemption regulations may still apply. Accordingly, consider whether the following block exemptions are relevant: the Research and Development ( R& D) Block Exemption Regulation (the R& D Block Exemption, Regulation 2023/1066) the Specialisation Block Exemption Regulation (the Specialisation Block Exemption, Regulation 2023/1067) the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation ( VBER 2022, Regulation 2022/720) If none of these fit, the IP-related agreement will then be examined on an individual basis under Articles 101(1) and 101(3) TFEU to determine whether there is an...
ARCHIVED – This archived practice note sets out information on EU competition law as it relates to big data and algorithms, reflecting the state of play at publication on 11 November 2017 and the position applicable. It is not maintained. As ‘big data’ becomes increasingly pivotal for uses across sectors, authorities, academics and practitioners have, in recent years, intensified their scrutiny of the antitrust consequences for policy and enforcement arising from big data and the algorithms used to analyse it. In September 2016, EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager pledged to ‘keep a close eye on how companies use data’, and several European competition authorities have undertaken, or in some instances continue to undertake, inquiries and studies on big data matters within jurisdictions. Two principal categories of concern have been highlighted by authorities and commentators: the deployment of algorithms processing big data may...
State action in the economy can intersect with EU Treaty duties, in particular the principle of loyalty in Article 4(3) TEU and Article 106 TFEU. A state may face responsibility under Article 4(3) TEU or Article 106(1) TFEU where its conduct brings about, or is liable to cause, an undertaking to breach the competition provisions in Articles 101 or 102 TFEU. Article 106(2) TFEU provides a narrow derogation from the TFEU rules for undertakings tasked with services of general economic interest ( SGEI) or possessing the features of a revenue‑producing monopoly. There are instances too in which the public authority is itself carrying on economic activity, so that it amounts to a relevant ‘undertaking’ for competition law purposes. State intervention in the economy and liberalisation The ownership and provision of public services, including energy, postal services,...
STOP PRESS : On 30 April 2026, the European Commission approved an updated Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation ( TTBER) together with accompanying Guidelines, supplanting the 2014 framework. The updated TTBER took effect on 1 May 2026. This Practice Note cites the TTBER and the Guidelines and is in the process of being refreshed to mirror these amendments. Finding equilibrium between intellectual property rights ( IP/ IPRs) and competition law is a longstanding issue. At a glance, the objectives of IPRs and competition law can seem at odds. In broad terms, IPR owners are entitled to govern access to, and seek payment for, exploitation of their exclusive rights. By contrast, competition law pursues open markets and restrains the misuse of market power. The Commission has acknowledged that the interplay of IPRs and competition law can raise concerns and create apparent friction. It has equally...
CASE HUB (date of judgment—12/01/2017) See further: timeline, commentary and related/similar cases Case facts ARCHIVED — this case hub is frozen as at the decision of 12 January 2017 and is not being maintained Outline Appeal lodged against the General Court’s judgment, which upheld the Commission decision of 20 July 2010 finding breaches of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement and levying a €59.85m fine, jointly and severally, on CFPR and its subsidiary Timab for the latter’s alleged role in a market‑sharing and price‑fixing cartel relating to animal feed phosphates supplied across the EEA between 1969 and 2004 (‘ Animal feed phosphates cartel’). The Commission’s inquiry culminated in a ‘settlement procedure’ in which every implicated undertaking, apart from CFPR/ Timab, took part and concluded a settlement with the Commission. On 12 January 2017, the Court of Justice dismissed CFPR/ Timab’s appeal in full,...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 14 May 2014; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court seeking annulment or a reduction of fines arising from the Commission’s decision of 22 July 2009, which found breaches of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA and levied a €5m penalty in connection with Donau Chemie AG’s alleged role in a calcium carbide and magnesium cartel between 2004 and 2007 (' Calcium carbide cartel'). The dispute centres on the methodology and practical steps for calculating a fine for infringing the competition rules. Parties Applicant: Donau Chemie AG ( Donau Chemie) Defendant: European Commission Donau Chemie is an Austrian chemical undertaking that manufactures calcium carbide and subsequently supplies calcium carbide granulates and calcium carbide powder to the gas and steel sectors...
Competition law touches organisations of every scale—from large multinationals trading across numerous territories to small and medium-sized businesses. This Practice Note sets out example questions to help conduct a high-level competition audit. The outcome of any competition analysis will largely depend on the particular parties and the markets in which they operate. As the checklist below simplifies complex issues, you should carefully consider whether each sample question is appropriate to the circumstances of the company being audited... Sample questions Please supply a full list of the markets in which [company] operates, together with a brief description of these activities. For the product/service markets identified above that [company] believes it competes in, please estimate [company]'s market shares. Do they exceed 40%? Does [company] ......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the decision date of 1 August 2017; it is no longer being maintained. For further details, see the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline: UK merger review into the proposed combination between Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust. Latest developments On 1 August 2017, the CMA granted full, unconditional clearance for the transaction. The CMA also determined that, although the merger could lessen competition in the provision of NHS elective services and NHS specialised services, the overall reduction in competition would ultimately be outweighed by significant benefits for patient care......
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
