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 NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice C‑846/19 P ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 12 September 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline Case facts On 20 November 2013, the Commission decided that support for building the Lithuanian liquefied natural gas terminal at the Klaipėda Seaport complied with State aid rules ( Case SA.36740) Outline An action for annulment was brought before the General Court contesting that decision Latest developments On 12 September 2019, the General Court delivered its judgment and dismissed the appeal in full The Court held the Commission had assessed all material available to it and could not rely on information never submitted in the complaints It confirmed the Commission had not erred in evaluating prospective Lithuanian gas demand It found competing private proposals were not...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment of 5 October 2020 and is no longer updated. For more detail, see the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court against the European Commission’s 2017 decision blocking the planned joint purchase of Cemex Croatia by Heidelberg Cement and Schwenk under the EU Merger Regulation ( Case M.7878). Latest development On 5 October 2020, the General Court delivered its ruling, dismissing the action and confirming the Commission’s prohibition. Parties Applicants: Heidelberg Cement AG ( HC) Schwenk Zement KG ( Schwenk) Defendant: European Commission HC is a Germany-based producer of construction materials with operations spanning 60 countries worldwide. Schwenk is a German construction materials manufacturer active in several European jurisdictions. Duna Dráva Cement ( DDC) is their joint subsidiary, headquartered in Hungary and operating across Eastern Europe; at the time of the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this hub is archived and records the position as at the judgment dated 13 May 2015; it is no longer maintained or updated. For further background, see the timeline, commentary and related/similar cases. For details on all current General Court appeals, consult the General Court—appeals tracker. Case facts Outline An appeal was brought before the General Court asking for annulment of the Commission’s clearance of 28 August 2009 that conditionally approved Lufthansa’s takeover of Austrian Airlines ( Case COMP/ M.5440— Lufthansa/ Austrian Airlines). On 13 May 2015, the General Court rejected the action in full. The case illustrates how hard it is to overturn merger clearances. Parties Applicant: Niki Luftfahrt Gmb H ( Niki Luftfahrt) Defendant: European Commission Niki Luftfahrt is an Austrian low-cost carrier and a subsidiary of Air Berlin. Headquartered at Vienna International Airport, and at the material time, it operated...
Article 101(1) TFEU Article 101(1) TFEU outlaws agreements and concerted practices that may influence trade between EU Member States and that have the aim or effect of preventing, restricting, or distorting competition. Although the boundary between the two infringement categories has become somewhat indistinct, object infringements generally stem from conduct that is inherently anti-competitive and sit at the more serious end of the spectrum. In such instances, a competition authority or claimant need not prove an actual impact on competition, as this is presumed. By contrast, arrangements that are less clearly anti-competitive call for an analysis of their actual effects before condemnation under competition law. Any adverse impact on competition must be appreciable to be caught by Article 101 TFEU. It is unnecessary to demonstrate specific, realised restrictive effects; it is enough, on a realistic and credible analysis, to show the agreement is capable of...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This case hub is archived and reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 7 July 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts An appeal was brought before the General Court against the Commission decision of 29 October 2013 denying AXA Versicherung AG access to parts of the Commission’s administrative file concerning the ' Car glass cartel' inquiry. AXA seeks these papers to support a damages claim it is pursuing before a national ( German) court. Outline On 7 July 2015, the General Court set aside the Commission’s decision in part, but only insofar as it concerned access to a limited subset of the documentation requested. Any EU citizen, or any natural or legal person living in a Member State (or with its registered office there), enjoys a right of access to documents held by the EU’s...
Intellectual Property Rights ( IPRs) give proprietors the practical ability to bar others from exploiting the protected subject matter. Blocking, or even threatening to block, third parties in this manner usually raises no issues under competition rules. Yet, in the relatively rare scenario where the IPR holder occupies a ‘dominant position’—that is, economic strength allowing it to operate, to a large degree, without effective competitive constraints—use of such exclusionary powers can sit uneasily with competition law. IPRs appear in several guises (eg trade marks, copyright, patents) and frictions may surface in multiple settings. Flashpoints most often involve patents and software copyright. Abuse of dominance under Article 102 TFEU EU case law recognises that dominance carries a special responsibility for the dominant undertaking. That responsibility obliges it to avoid forms of rivalry that are not ‘on the merits’. Because the contours of this notion are...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the order dated 4 July 2014 and is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline A. C. Nielsen Company Limited appealed the OFT’s clearance of the Information Resources Inc./ Aztec Group merger and its decision not to refer the transaction to the Competition Commission (case 1227/4/12/14). On 4 July 2014, the CAT set aside the OFT’s decision and sent the matter back to the CMA. Parties A. C. Nielsen Company Limited ( A. C. Nielsen) — a US-based market research company operating in more than 100 countries, supplying retail measurement services in the UK. Competition and Markets Authority — took over the OFT’s functions on 1 April 2014. Information Resources Inc. ( IRi) — a US-based company that acquired Aztec...
1. What is the applicable legislation? Malaysia does not have a single, overarching statute regulating foreign direct investment ( FDI). FDI rules are sector-specific. Some industries carry limits on foreign participation, while others have none. For example, sector regulators (eg the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission) can impose foreign equity limits through licence conditions for regulated services. Typically, these FDI parameters are set by policy rather than being expressly embedded in legislation. 2. Which government or other body (or bodies) reviews foreign investments? Although no sole authority is appointed to govern FDI into Malaysia, the Malaysian Investment Development Authority ( MIDA) is a statutory body mandated to promote, attract and co-ordinate FDI into Malaysia, and to encourage growth and development in the manufacturing and services industry. Foreign involvement in any given industry or sector falls under the purview of the relevant regulator or ministry...
NOTE—to check whether notification thresholds in Chad and throughout the world are satisfied, please see further: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Chadian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Chad? Chad’s competition framework is set out in Law No. 43/ PR/2014 of 24 December 2014 on competition (the Competition Law). The body tasked with receiving notifications under this statute is the National Competition Council, created under Article 35 of the Competition Law. Members of the National Competition Council were designated by Decree No. 284/ PR/19 of 12 March 2019. Chad is also a member of the Central African Economic and Monetary Community ( CEMAC), which operates a separate competition regime for mergers with a regional scope. CEMAC’s merger control system is contained in...
NOTE—to check if notification thresholds in French Polynesia and worldwide are reached, see: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in French Polynesia? French Polynesia, a French overseas territory, benefits from enhanced autonomy from mainland France under a special status. Consequently, since 2015 it has had its own merger control regime, set out in Articles LP 310-1 et seqq. of the Code de la concurrence de la Polynésie française ( CCPF), and applied from 2016 by the Autorité Polynésienne de la Concurrence ( APC). In 2017, the APC issued dedicated guidance on the scope and procedure of merger control (the APC Guidelines), updated in 2019. Despite being distinct, the regimes are closely aligned and the two competition...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 20 February 2024; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline of the European Commission’s merger review of the planned joint venture between Orange S. A. and Más Móvil Ibercom S. A. U. ( M.10896). The deal presents horizontal overlaps in the retail and wholesale provision of fixed broadband and mobile services. Latest developments On 20 February 2024, the Commission approved the deal, conditional on commitments. It was concerned that: the merger would create the largest operator by customer numbers; the parties compete closely; and consumers in Spain could face significant price rises. To address these concerns, the parties committed to: transfer spectrum held by Más Móvil to Digi across three frequency bands, namely two medium‑frequency bands (1,800 MHz and 2,100 MHz) and one high‑frequency band (3.5 GHz); and enter into an...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Case T- 609/19 ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline An inquiry by the European Commission under Article 14(2) of the EU Merger Regulation examined suspected gun-jumping by Canon linked to its 2016 purchase of Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation ( Case M.8179). Latest developments On 27 June 2019, the Commission adopted an infringement decision and levied a €28m fine on Canon. It concluded that Canon had executed the initial phase of a ‘warehousing’ arrangement prior to notifying, or obtaining approval from, the Commission under the EU Merger Regulation, thereby breaching Articles 4(1) and 7(1) of that Regulation. Parties Canon is a Japanese multinational, specialising in the production of imaging and optical equipment. Toshiba Medical Systems...
This outlines and monitors all concluded antitrust sector investigations by the European Commission conducted under Article 17 of Regulation 1/2003, providing a consolidated overview. 2022 Market Issues Developments Internet of Things An antitrust competition inquiry concerning the ‘ Internet of Things’ for consumer-related products and services in the EU. It addresses consumer-related products and services in scope. The inquiry targets consumer-related products and services that link to a network and are operable remotely (ie via a voice assistant or mobile device). Final report published—20/01/2022; competition concerns identified Preliminary report published—09/06/2021 Inquiry launched—16/07/2020 2017 Market Issues Developments E-commerce......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the decision date of 25 October 2017 and is no longer being maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts ARCHIVE 25/10/2017 Outline An Article 101 TFEU investigation by the European Commission concerning Honeywell and Du Pont (now Chemours, a Du Pont spin-off), recorded under case number AT.39822. Latest development On 25 October 2017, the Commission confirmed that it had decided to close the investigation. This step followed a review of submissions from Honeywell, Chemours, and interested third parties. It also came after the earlier withdrawal of all three formal complaints that had been filed with the Commission. The Commission stated it would continue to keep the chemicals market under close scrutiny, including the R-1234yf refrigerant. Parties Honeywell International Inc ( Honeywell) Chemours (a spun-off unit formerly part of E. I. ......
On 23 March 2022, the European Commission ( Commission) introduced a Temporary Crisis Framework ( TCF), under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, enabling Member States to deploy the available flexibilities in State aid rules to bolster the economy in the context of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. On 9 March 2023, the Commission unveiled the Temporary Crisis and Transition Framework ( TCTF) to back measures in sectors that are pivotal to speeding up the green transition and cutting fuel dependencies. The TCTF superseded the TCF. On 25 June 2025, the Commission adopted the Clean Industrial Deal State Aid Framework ( CISAF) to underpin the Clean Industrial Deal. CISAF took the place of the TCTF. It will apply until 31 December 2030. This document monitors every Commission decision issued under the TCF, TCTF and CISAF. NOTE— For all Commission State aid decisions issued by the...
If a deal qualifies as a notifiable ‘concentration’ under the EU Merger Regulation ( EUMR) and meets the relevant jurisdictional thresholds, it must be notified to the European Commission (the Commission). The Commission will then review the deal according to a prescribed process. Until clearance is granted by the Commission, the parties must put implementation on hold. The Commission’s review begins once the parties formally notify it by filing a completed Form CO. From that point, the review follows a set timetable with strict deadlines: all mergers undergo a phase I review—the Commission has 25 working days to issue its phase I decision (extendable to 35 working days if the parties propose commitments), and if the Commission is concerned a merger may impede competition, it will refer the case for a more detailed phase II review, unless the parties submit suitable...
ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the decision date of 12 December 2018; it is no longer being maintained. NOTE — appeals were lodged before the Court of Justice in the following cases: C-144/19 P C-151/19 P C-164/19 P C-166/19 P C-176/19 P C-197/19 P C-198/19 P C-201/19 P C-207/19 P See further: timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Appeals were brought before the General Court seeking annulment and/or a reduction of fines arising from the Commission’s decision of 9 June 2014. That decision found breaches of Article 101 and Article 102 in so far as they concerned Servier, and levied penalties totalling €427.7m on Servier and five manufacturers of generic drugs for delaying the entry of perindopril......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived hub records the position as at the judgment dated 17 March 2013; it is no longer updated. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts CASE HUB (date of judgments—17/03/2013) Outline Appeals were brought before the General Court aiming to set aside and cut the individual penalties arising from the Commission’s decision of 28 January 2009, which found breaches of Article 101 TFEU and levied aggregate fines of €131.51m on five corporate groups (among them the three appellants) for their putative involvement in a worldwide cartel concerning the supply of marine hose from 1986 to 2007 (‘ Marine hoses cartel’). On 17 March 2013, the General Court set aside parts of the Commission’s decision as regards each applicant, and lowered Parker’s penalty, given the Commission had not shown that Parker ITR bore responsibility for the entire period of the...
By Marjolein Geus and Feyo Sickinghe. On 15 December 2020, the European Commission (the Commission) unveiled drafts for two measures to govern digital services: the Digital Services Act ( DSA) and the Digital Markets Act ( DMA). The DMA appeared in the EU’s Official Journal on 12 October 2022, took effect on 1 November 2022, and will apply from 2 May 2023. Identification of gatekeeper platforms is scheduled for mid‑2023, with businesses expected to meet DMA obligations from March 2024. Introduction The Digital Services Act and revisions to the e‑commerce Directive 2000/311 (the Digital Services Act or DSA) target the oversight of varied online intermediaries, spanning basic conduit services through to very large online platforms, for which differentiated levels of rules are set. The Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Digital Markets Act (the Digital Markets Act, DMA, or the...
Any entity affected by an alleged breach of EU competition rules may lodge a complaint with the European Commission (the Commission) concerning relevant agreements and/or practices and related conduct that could constitute violations of Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU. In its Notice on the handling of complaints (the Complaints Notice), the Commission explains that it seeks to motivate and encourage citizens and undertakings to proactively approach the relevant public enforcers of competition law in order to alert them to suspected contraventions of the competition rules. For ease of reference, this Practice Note calls the party submitting the complaint the ‘complainant’. The party complained against is termed the ‘defendant’. Additional detail on how the Commission deals with complaints can be found in section 5 of the Commission’s notice on best practices for the conduct of proceedings relating to Article 101 and 102 TFEU (the Notice on Best...
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
