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 preserved case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 17 January 2019; it is not maintained. See further: timeline. Case facts Outline UK merger inquiry into the completed purchase by Menzies Aviation ( UK) Limited of part of the business of Airline Services Limited. The deal created horizontal overlaps in the supply of de-icing services and ground handling services at several UK airports. Latest developments On 17 January 2019, after an in-depth phase 2 review, the CMA published its final report, approving the transaction unconditionally. Parties Menzies Aviation ( UK) Limited ( Menzies Aviation) is a UK-based supplier of landside and airside services to airports and airlines. Menzies Aviation is a subsidiary of John Menzies plc. Airline Services Limited is a UK-based company providing aircraft presentation and cabin interior support services to the airline industry. The assets acquired comprise the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub sets out the position as at the date of the decision on 16 March 2017; it is no longer updated. See further, the timeline and associated commentary. Case facts Summary of the UK merger investigation into the completed corporate purchase by Diebold, Incorporated of Wincor Nixdorf AG. The deal features horizontal overlaps in markets for supplying ATMs (cashpoints) to banks and independent ATM deployers, ultimately resulting in a ‘3–to-2’ merger. Latest developments On 16 March 2017, the CMA published its final report and cleared the deal subject to remedies. The CMA concluded the merger has led to an SLC in the UK market for the supply of customer‑operated ATMs, where the parties are two of the only three suppliers. As remedies, Diebold must divest either its own or Wincor’s...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 15 January 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline UK merger inquiry into BT Group plc’s proposed acquisition of EE Limited. The deal features horizontal overlaps and other non-horizontal matters within the telecommunications industry. Latest developments On 15 January 2016, the CMA cleared the merger without conditions, endorsing its provisional conclusions. Parties BT Group plc ( BT). BT is a UK-based business and the largest provider of fixed communications services nationwide. It also operates as a Mobile Virtual Network Operator ( MVNO). BT supplies numerous fixed services to other communications providers, including mobile backhaul for mobile operators (such as EE, O2, Three and Vodafone), linking radio masts to their core networks. BT also delivers wholesale broadband to...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 17 March 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary Case facts Outline UK merger inquiry into the completed purchase by Bottomline of Experian’s EPG business and associated assets. The deal featured horizontal overlaps within markets for payment software. Latest developments On 17 March 2020, the CMA published its final report, concluding that the transaction had not resulted in, and was not expected to result in, an SLC in payment software markets. Consequently, the CMA cleared the acquisition without conditions. Parties Bottomline Technologies, (de) Inc ( Bottomline), a US-based provider, delivers electronic payment, invoice, and document automation solutions primarily across the US, Europe, and the Asia- Pacific. Experian Limited ( Experian) forms part of a group whose parent company, Experian plc, is listed on the London Stock...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision dated 9 July 2020 and is no longer updated. For more, see the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline: CMA investigation under Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I and Article 102 TFEU/ Chapter II into Aspen’s suspected infringement of competition law regarding the supply of fludrocortisone acetate tablets in the UK. Latest developments On 9 July 2020, the CMA issued an infringement decision, concluding that Aspen unlawfully agreed to pay two rival firms, Amilco and Tiofarma, to refrain from entering the UK market for fludrocortisone acetate tablets, enabling Aspen to remain the sole UK supplier of fludrocortisone and increase prices by 1,800%. The CMA levied a penalty totalling £2.3. Aspen has also paid £8m to the NHS. Parties Aspen Pharmacare Holdings Ltd, Aspen Global Inc., Apsen Pharma Ireland Ltd, and Aspen Pharma...
CASE HUB See further, case facts and timeline Case facts Outline CMA Chapter II CA98 inquiry into Google’s conduct relating to ad tech and header bidding services. Latest developments On 6 September 2024, the CMA issued a statement of objections, alleging Google abused its dominant position by ‘self preferencing’ its own ad exchange. Parties Google UK Limited, Google Ireland Limited, Google LLC and Alphabet Inc ( Google). Google is a US multinational technology company. Background Online platforms and digital advertising market study On 1 July 2020, the CMA released its final report on online platforms and digital advertising. It highlighted significant concerns and assessed potential remedies to address market power in ad tech. The report also examined Google’s role in header bidding services, which sit within the wider ad tech stack. Investigation into header bidding services On 22 March 2022, the CMA opened: (i) a Chapter I investigation into whether Google and Meta entered into an...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeals lodged before the CAT in 1587/1/12/23 and 1588/1/12/23 ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the decision of 23 March 2023; it is no longer maintained. For more, see the timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline of a CMA Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I investigation into suspected cartels in the market for the supply of demolition and asbestos removal services, involving bid rigging. Latest developments On 8 February 2024, the High Court refused an application by Mr Nicholas Brown to remain a director, notwithstanding his competition disqualification undertaking under section 9B of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. Parties Brown and Mason Group Limited ( Brown and Mason): one of Europe’s largest demolition, dismantling and asbestos removal companies. Cantillon Limited and its parent company, Cantillon Holdings Limited (together, Cantillon): one of the UK’s leading demolition and enabling works...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED— This archived case hub records the position as at 31 July 2019, the date on which director disqualification undertakings were announced; it is no longer being maintained. For more detail, see the timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline CMA investigation under Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I into suspected price-fixing in the UK market for the provision of design, construction and fit-out services ( Case 50481). Latest developments On 7 October 2019, 14 November 2019 and in December 2019, the High Court issued orders confirming that Mr Aki Stamatis and Mr Sion Davies were permitted to continue to act as directors, subject to strict conditions specific to this case. During their disqualification period, the two directors may engage in the management of certain Fourfront Group entities, but they are barred from holding the directorship of any other...
This table summarises concluded CMA, OFT and sectoral regulator probes from 2013 brought under Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998. Only matters placed in the public domain appear here. For live conduct cases, see UK behavioural investigations—ongoing cases tracker. For appeal updates, see UK competition appeals—ongoing cases tracker. For closed Article 102/ Chapter II conduct, see UK behavioural investigations—closed cases tracker. For CMA director disqualification actions, see UK competition director disqualifications—cases tracker. 2025 Case name, companies under investigation and industry Competition authority Issues Developments Housebuilders (51392) — Barratt Developments plc, Bellway plc, The Berkeley Group plc, Bloor Homes Limited, Persimmon plc, Redrow plc, Taylor Wimpey plc and Vistry Group plc — CMA — Anti-competitive arrangements—information exchange Commitments accepted — 30/10/2025 ...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub states the position as at the decision date of 21 September 2016; it is no longer maintained or updated. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline The Belgian Hof van Beroep te Brussel referred a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, seeking clarification on whether a domestic rule fixing the pricing of tobacco products on the domestic market (in particular, obliging retailers not to sell below specified thresholds) complies, among other matters, with Article 101 TFEU (read together with Article 4(3) TEU) and the ‘free movement’ provisions in Article 34 TFEU. On 21 September 2016, the Court of Justice held that Article 34 TFEU and Article 101 TFEU (the latter construed alongside Article 4(3) TEU) do not prevent a national measure banning price promotions for...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgments of 19 December 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timelinecommentary and related/similar cases. Case facts Outline of cases: C-582/18 P Viscas Corp v Commission, C-589/18 P Furukawa Electric Co Ltd v Commission, and C-590/18 P Fujikura Ltd v Commission—three appeals to the Court of Justice directed at the General Court’s judgments in T-422/14, T-444/14 and T-451/14. Those judgments had dismissed actions seeking to annul the Commission’s decision concerning the cartel in high-voltage power cables ( AT.39610). Each appeal targeted the rejection of their annulment actions. Latest development On 28 November 2019, the Court of Justice delivered its rulings in C-582/18 P Viscas Corp v Commission, C-589/18 P Furukawa Electric Co Ltd v Commission and C-590/18 P Fujikura Ltd v Commission, being appeals from the General Court’s judgments in...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 2 April 2020 and is no longer actively maintained at this time. See further, the timeline, commentary, and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 228/18 Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Budapest Bank Nyrt. and Others—a national reference from Hungary seeking clarification on the line between restrictions by object and by effect under Article 101(1) TFEU. Latest developments On 2 April 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its ruling. The Court of Justice held that identical conduct may constitute both a restriction by object and a restriction by effect on competition within Article 101(1) TFEU. As regards whether the Hungarian multilateral interchange fee ( MIF) agreement is a restriction by object, that assessment falls to the referring court to make......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this case hub is preserved as at the judgment dated 26 November 2015 and is no longer updated. See also: timeline, commentary and related or relevant cases Case facts Outline National reference by the Latvian Augstākā tiesa to the Court of Justice seeking a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU to determine, in particular, whether a restrictive covenant in retail lease agreements (a non‑compete) constitutes a restriction ‘by object’ within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU. On 26 November 2015, the Court of Justice decided that a restrictive covenant in retail lease agreements (a non‑compete) is not a restriction ‘by object’ for the purposes of Article 101(1) TFEU; however, this does not prevent it being found to infringe that provision following a full and proper analysis of its ‘effects’. The issue illustrates the potential reach of competition law in relation to land...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 16 July 2020 and is no longer maintained. For additional information, consult the timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 686/18 Adusbef and Others—arising from a national reference from Italy—asks whether a domestic rule—which, among other matters, compels a co‑operative bank to transform into a private company once a specified asset threshold is surpassed—contravenes Article 107 TFEU. Latest developments On 16 July 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, rejecting the competition limb of the reference (ie Question 3) as inadmissible. The Court held that the Council of State had not supplied the information required to assess whether the measure at issue could be treated as ‘ State aid’ within the meaning of Article 107(1)...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at 25 March 2021, the date of judgment; it is not being updated. For further information, see the timeline, commentary and related/similar cases. Case facts Outline Appeals to the Court of Justice stemming from the General Court’s judgments in Cases T-460/13, T-467/13, T-469/13, T-470/13, T-471/13 and T-472/13, which rejected applications to annul the Commission’s decision of 19 June 2013. That decision identified four infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and imposed fines totalling €146m on Lundbeck and certain generic manufacturers for ‘pay‑for‑delay’ arrangements postponing the market entry of generic citalopram in the EEA ( AT.39226). The appeals were lodged in: C‑586/16 Sun Pharmaceutical Industries and Ranbaxy ( UK) v Commission C‑588/16 Generics ( UK) v Commission C‑591/16 P Lundbeck v...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment dated 26 September 2018 and is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases Case facts Outline Philips brought an appeal against the General Court’s ruling that confirmed the Commission’s decision of 3 September 2014 ( Case AT.39226). That decision established an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and levied fines on Philips for its purported involvement in a cartel relating to the supply of smart card chips. Outcome On 26 September 2018, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, dismissing Philips’ appeal in its entirety. Parties Applicant: Koninklijke Philips NV ( Philips) Philips France SAS ( Philips France) Defendant: European Commission Philips, headquartered in the Netherlands, is a global technology company also engaged in the production and supply of smart card...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment of 17 September 2020 and is no longer maintained. For further details, see the timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline: Case C‑212/19, Compagnie des pêches de Saint‑ Malo — a national reference from France asking, among other points, whether the Commission’s decision of 14/07/2004 should be interpreted as stating that only the reductions in social security contributions are incompatible with the common market, on the basis that reductions in employees’ contributions do not benefit undertakings and therefore cannot fall within Article 107 TFEU. Latest developments On 17 September 2020, the Court of Justice gave its judgment, holding that the Commission’s decision of 17 July 2004 was invalid. It therefore found it unnecessary to address the two questions submitted by the Council of State. Parties Applicants: Ministre de l’...
CASE HUB (date of judgment—06/07/2017) See further: timeline commentary related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 6 June 2017; it is no longer maintained. Outline An appeal was lodged against the General Court’s ruling that affirmed the Commission’s re‑adopted decision of 27 June 2012 (which amended the Commission’s original decision of 24 January 2007). That decision found a breach of Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA Agreement and re‑imposed a €56.79m fine on Toshiba for its alleged role in a cartel concerning the supply of gas‑insulated switchgear (‘ Switchgear cartel’). On 6 July 2017, the Court of Justice rejected the appeal in its entirety, thereby upholding the General Court’s judgment and, in turn, the adjusted penalty imposed by the Commission under the re‑adopted decision......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 28 July 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline A request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU was submitted by the Hungarian Fővárosi Ítélőtábla to the Court of Justice, seeking clarification on whether restitution claims based on unjust enrichment are covered by the jurisdictional head in Regulation ( EC) No 44/2001 (the Brussels Regulation) relating to ‘tort, delict or quasi-delict’ (together, ‘non-contractual liability’). On 28 July 2016, the Court of Justice held that an action to recover ‘sums not due’ on grounds of unjust enrichment—here arising from the repayment of a fine levied in competition law proceedings—does not sit within the notion of ‘civil and commercial matters’ for the purposes of the Brussels Regulation, thereby...
CASE HUB (appeal lodged by Orange Polska at Court of Justice in Case C- 123/16) ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 17 December 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court seeking annulment, or a reduction, of penalties arising from the Commission’s decision of 22 June 2011, which found an abuse of a dominant position contrary to Article 102 TFEU and imposed a €127.55m fine on Telekomunikacja Polska (now Orange Polska). The infringement concerned an alleged refusal, between August 2005 and October 2009, to provide rival operators with wholesale access to broadband Internet services. On 17 December 2016, the General Court rejected Orange Polska’s action in its entirety. The case addresses, among other matters, the approach to fine calculation, the...
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
