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 judgment dated 27 March 2014; it is no longer being maintained...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 14/04/2014 and is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Akzo Nobel appealed the Competition Commission’s ruling blocking its proposed acquisition of Metlac. The CAT handed down its judgment on 21/06/2013, dismissing the appeal, and the Court of Appeal rejected a further appeal against the CAT’s judgment on 14/04/2014. Parties Akzo Nobel NV ( Akzo Nobel) Competition Commission ( CC) Metlac Holding ( Metlac), intervened in support of the CC Background Akzo Nobel already owned a 49% interest in Metlac. In 2012, it announced its intention to exercise an option to buy the remaining 51% shareholding and obtain full control. The OFT opened a merger investigation and subsequently referred the case to the CC. The CC found a SLC and prohibited Akzo Nobel from acquiring the remaining 51% of shares (see Akzo Nobel/...
When assessing the competition law implications of a corporate transaction, ensure that these issues are reflected in the sale and purchase agreement and that responsibilities and risks are clearly allocated between the parties. In particular, where merger control filings are required, their consequences must be properly captured in the conditions precedent and in the covenants (to establish whether any merger control filings are needed, see further, MJ merger grid—jurisdiction). In addition, parties should consider whether the deal triggers any other mandatory pre-completion notification or reporting regimes, including notification under Regulation ( EU) 2022/2560 on foreign subsidies distorting the internal market ( Foreign Subsidy Regulation— FSR) and mandatory reporting obligations under Part 1 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 ( DMCCA 2024). Following due diligence, it will also be necessary to determine what warranties are required to address any...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment of 15 November 2013 and is no longer being maintained. For further details, see the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Global Radio Holdings Limited brought an appeal against the Competition Commission’s decision arising from the Global Radio/ GMG merger investigation, including the direction to sell seven radio stations. The appeal was dismissed by the CAT on 15/11/2013. Parties Global Radio Holdings Ltd ( Global) is a privately owned commercial radio company operating one national station ( Classic FM) and additional local stations under the Heart, Capital, Choice, LBC, Xfm and Gold brands. Global completed its acquisition of Real and Smooth Limited ( RSL), then known as GMG Radio Holdings Limited, on 24 June 2012. RSL operates local and regional radio stations broadcasting as Real, Real XS and...
NOTE—appeal lodged by Scania before the General Court in Case T- 799/17 ARCHIVED – this case hub captures the status as at the final decision on 27 September 2017 and is no longer updated. See the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU probe into a suspected cartel in the heavy and medium‑duty trucks market ( Case AT.39824). Latest development On 27 September 2017, the Commission adopted an infringement decision against the sixth truck manufacturer under investigation, Scania, imposing a fine of €880,523,000. Scania chose not to settle with the Commission. Parties MAN Volvo/ Renault Daimler Iveco (a subsidiary of Fiat) DAF Scania Background Dawn raids were conducted in January 2011 following an immunity request by MAN. A statement of objections was issued on 20 November 2014. On 19 July 2016, the Commission announced that five...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the decision date of 29 May 2013 and is no longer updated. See the timeline and related cases for more. Case facts Outline European Commission merger inquiry into the planned purchase by Syniverse of Mach ( Case M.6690). Latest developments On 29 May 2013, the Commission approved the merger, conditional on commitments. The commitments accepted by the Commission require the disposal of Mach’s Data Clearing ( DC) services and Near Trade Roaming Data Exchange ( NRTRDE) services within the EEA. The package will include the relevant infrastructure, enabling the buyer to supply DC and NRTRDE, as well as a full suite of additional roaming-related services demanded by customers......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the decision dated 5 June 2014 and is no longer being maintained. For additional context, see the timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Overview of the European Commission’s merger investigation into Holcim’s proposed acquisition of Cemex West ( Case M.7009). The companies are among the leading suppliers of cement, ready-mixed concrete, aggregates and cementitious materials across Western Germany, Belgium, and parts of France and the Netherlands. Germany submitted an Article 9 referral request, which the Commission declined. Latest developments The Commission gave unconditional clearance to the deal on 5 June 2014. Germany’s Article 9 referral was refused on 6 January 2014 on the basis that the market affected by the transaction was not solely national in scope but spanned several Member States. The matter was opened for a phase II...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 5 October 2020 and is no longer updated. For more, see the timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Following the Court of Justice’s ruling in Case C‑438/16, the matter was sent back to the General Court. That ruling addressed an appeal against the General Court’s earlier judgment, which had partly upheld a challenge to the Commission’s decision of 29 June 2011 ( Case SA.23364). The Commission had found that a guarantee granted to IFP was compatible with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, provided IFP’s economic activities remained merely ancillary and were tied to its principal role of public research. Latest developments On 5 October 2020, the General Court delivered its judgment, dismissing the appeals in full as unfounded, save that it upheld IFP’s argument that the financial reporting obligations imposed were...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment of 3 September 2020 and is no longer updated. See also: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court’s ruling in Case T‑79/16, which upheld an action contesting the Commission’s decision in SA.27301—alleged unlawful State aid connected to the subsidised purchase or free transfer of land for nature conservation in the Netherlands. Latest developments On 3 September 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, rejecting the appeals, affirming the General Court’s ruling and confirming the annulment of the Commission’s 2015 decision. Parties Appellants: European Commission (the Commission) 13 Land management organisations ( LMOs) Respondent: Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters ( VGG) and 21 other applicants (together, VGG and Others) Background LMOs are not-for-profit, non-governmental associations and foundations whose statutes set out nature conservation and protection as their purpose. To establish an...
A ‘merger’ can come within the scope of the EU merger rules and require notification to the European Commission (the Commission) where at least two parties to the deal generate appreciable worldwide and EU turnover, both combined and individually. In particular, and subject to a few narrowly construed exceptions, a transaction must be notified to and cleared by the Commission if: it is a ‘concentration’ within the meaning of the EU Merger Regulation ( EUMR) the merger is permanent it satisfies the specified financial thresholds Where these requirements are satisfied then, subject to a few narrowly construed exceptions, EU merger control will apply to the exclusion of the national merger rules of any European Economic Area ( EEA) Member State. The EUMR defines a ‘concentration’ as follows: where two independent undertakings merge—this includes scenarios in which previously...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment date of 6 February 2014 and is no longer maintained. See also: timeline, commentary and relevant/related cases Case facts ARCHIVE—06/02/2014 Outline Appeals before the General Court sought annulment and/or reductions of fines arising from the Commission’s decision of 11 November 2009, which found infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA and imposed penalties in relation to: (1) Elf Aquitaine and its group companies’ involvement in EEA‑wide cartels affecting the market for tin and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers; and (2) the consultancy AC‑ Treuhand’s alleged role as a facilitator of the cartel conduct. Parties Applicants: Elf Aquitaine SA ( Elf) Arkema France ( Arkema) CECA SA ( CECA) AC‑ Treuhand AG ( AC‑ Treuhand) Defendant: European Commission AC‑ Treuhand is a Swiss consulting firm providing a full range of services...
CASE HUB (date of judgment—26/01/2017) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 26 January 2017; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeals were lodged by the European Commission together with a substantial number of appellants against the General Court’s judgments which, in essence and to a large extent, upheld the Commission’s decision of 23 June 2010. That decision identified breaches of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and imposed aggregate fines of €622m on manufacturers of bathroom equipment for their alleged involvement in a single, continuous infringement within the bathroom fixtures and fittings sector (the ‘ Bathroom fittings and fixtures cartel’). The General Court partially annulled the decision in relation to Roca Sanitario, Keramag Keramische Werke AG ( KKW) and Sanitec (the latter within a joint action...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 25 January 2024; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline A reference from Romania seeks guidance on the interpretation of Article 101 TFEU concerning minimum remuneration for lawyers. Latest developments On 25 January 2024, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, indicating that Bulgarian provisions setting minimum legal fees amount to a restriction ‘by object’ under Article 101 TFEU. A national court may disapply such rules, even where the statutory floor matches prevailing market rates for legal services. Parties Applicant — Em akaunt BG ЕООD (the Applicant) Defendant — Zastrahovatelno aktsionerno druzhestvo ‘ Armeets’ AD (the Defendant) Market Legal services sector. Background to reference The Applicant brought proceedings before the Sofia District Court, Bulgaria, seeking property insurance compensation from its insurer after the theft of a motor vehicle. The claim also...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This case hub sets out the position as at the decision on 23 June 2025; it is not being maintained any longer and will not be updated going forward. Please see further, timeline for reference. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the proposed acquisition of Dorna Sports by Liberty Media ( M.11539). The transaction presents horizontal overlaps in the supply and licensing of broadcasting rights for motorsport content. Latest developments On 23 June 20205, the Commission approved the deal without conditions following an in‑depth phase II assessment conducted by the Commission. Parties Liberty Media Corporation ( Liberty Media) Liberty Media, with its headquarters in the US, holds interests across a wide array of media, sport and entertainment businesses. Taken together, these interests are allocated to two groups: the Formula One Group and the Liberty Live Group. Dorna Sports, S. L. ( Dorna...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position as at the decision date of 11 December 2018; it is no longer maintained. See the timeline and commentary Case facts Outline The European Commission assessed the proposed acquisition of MKM by KME ( Case M.8909). The operation implicated: Horizontal overlaps in rolled copper products, notably pure copper and selected copper alloys Horizontal overlaps in sanitary copper tubes A vertical link concerning the supply of pre-rolled strip used for rolled copper products Latest developments On 11 December 2018, following a phase II investigation, the Commission approved the transaction without conditions. Parties KME Germany Gmb H & Co. KG ( KME) is a European industrial group headquartered in Germany, engaged in producing and marketing copper and copper alloy products, including rolled copper and alloy variants, as well as copper tubes. It runs...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the 29 March 2017 decision date; it is not maintained. See also timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Overview of the European Commission’s merger inquiry into the proposed combination of Deutsche Börse AG and London Stock Exchange Group plc ( Case M.7995). The deal featured horizontal overlaps across several segments within financial market infrastructure. Latest developments On 29 March 2017, the Commission prohibited the transaction. It found the tie-up would lead to a de facto monopoly in the clearing of fixed income instruments. The parties’ proposed remedies did not sufficiently address the Commission’s concerns. Parties Deutsche Börse AG ( DB), a Germany‑based diversified financial market infrastructure organisation. It runs the Frankfurt Stock Exchange, a regulated marketplace for trading shares, bonds and other financial instruments. It also operates exchanges including Eurex and EEX. Its...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position at the date the notification was withdrawn on 29 January 2024; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Summary of the European Commission’s merger review of Amazon.com, Inc.’s proposed purchase of i Robot Corporation ( M.10920). The deal presented a vertical overlap in the robot vacuum cleaner market. Latest developments On 29 January 2024, Amazon and i Robot announced a joint decision to terminate Amazon’s planned acquisition of i Robot, following the Commission’s objections to the transaction. Parties Amazon.com, Inc. ( Amazon): a US-based multinational running an online marketplace where retailers can advertise and sell goods (including RVCs) to consumers. Amazon also retails a wide range of products (including RVCs) on its Amazon Stores and provides the Alexa voice assistant. i Robot Corporation (i Robot): a US-based producer of robot vacuum cleaners, which i Robot also...
CASE HUB See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline of the European Commission’s merger review into the planned acquisition of Transat by Air Canada ( M.9489). The deal raised a horizontal overlap in the provision of air transport services between the EEA and Canada. Latest developments On 2 April 2021, the parties withdrew their notification to the Commission and declared that the transaction had been abandoned. Parties Air Canada: Based in Canada, Air Canada is a global airline offering scheduled passenger services domestically and worldwide. It serves Europe via its mainline operations and through Air Canada Rouge, a leisure-focused, lower-cost service launched in 2013. Alongside passenger services, it oversees the Aeroplane loyalty programme, provides air cargo and ground handling, and sells holiday packages via Air Canada Vacations. Transat: Transat, headquartered in Canada, is the parent of Air Transat, which offers scheduled passenger air transport in Canada and...
This Practice Note explains how the European Commission (the Commission) undertakes the substantive appraisal of mergers under the EU Merger Regulation ( EUMR). Where a deal falls within the EUMR, the Commission must decide whether the concentration is compatible with the single market. Under the EUMR, any concentration that brings about a significant impediment to effective competition ( SIEC) in the internal market, or a substantial part of it, in particular through the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, must be declared incompatible with the single market. By contrast, a concentration that does not lead to a SIEC in the internal market, or in a substantial part of it, must be cleared (ie deemed compatible with the single market). The SIEC test The SIEC test was introduced into EU competition law to close a gap identified by the European Courts when assessing the...
EU Merger Regulation ( EUMR) Under the EU Merger Regulation, the European Commission may accept remedial undertakings as a condition of a Phase I approval or following a Phase II, in‑depth review; within the EUMR these remedies are described as ‘commitments’. The Commission has been adaptable and inventive in crafting such measures, and in practice prefers conditional clearances to outright prohibitions. Although it cannot unilaterally impose commitments, it can apply pressure on the merging parties to propose suitable commitments where competition concerns arise, and it is prepared to give general guidance on the appropriateness of what to offer. Large global deals between close rivals can still be approved if workable remedies are identified that, at the same time, do not call into question the economic rationale of the transaction. By way of illustration, in Ball/ Rexam ( M.7567), involving the two leading beverage can...
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
