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 (appeals lodged at the Court of Justice in Cases C- 88/15 ( Ferriere Nord), C- 86/15 ( Ferriera Valsabbia and Valsabbia Investimenti), C- 89/15 P ( Riva Fire) and C- 85/15 ( Feralpi)) ARCHIVED – this hub records the position as at the judgment of 9 December 2014 and is still not being updated. See: timeline and related/relevant cases; case facts; outline. Appeals were brought before the General Court seeking annulment, partial annulment and/or cuts to the individual penalties set in the Commission’s re‑adopted decision of 30 September 2009 (as later amended by a decision of 8 December 2009). That procedure revisited a matter previously pursued under Article 65 of the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty ( ECSC), which had identified infringements and levied fines of €85m (reduced to €83.25m in the re‑adopted decision) on eight corporate groups for their alleged role in a...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 21 May 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Actions before the General Court sought to annul or reduce the fine arising from the Commission decision of 7 February 2009, which established infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and imposed a €13.2m penalty on Toshiba for its supposed involvement in a market‑sharing arrangement concerning the supply of power transformers between 1999 and 2003 (' Power transformers cartel'). On 21 May 2014, the General Court dismissed Toshiba’s appeal in full. Amongst other points, the case examines the evidential weight of corporate leniency submissions and statements by employees. Parties Applicant: Toshiba Corporation ( Toshiba) Defendant: European...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 18 October 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court against the European Commission decision in Case AT.40410, which found a breach of Article 101 TFEU and imposed fines on, amongst others, Clariant, for taking part in a cartel relating to purchases on the ethylene merchant market ( AT.40410). Outcome On 18 October 2023, the General Court handed down its judgment, rejecting the appeal in full. The Court also dismissed the Commission’s counterclaim. Parties Applicant: Clariant AG and its subsidiary, Clariant International AG (together, Clariant). Clariant, a Swiss-based company, is one of the world’s leading speciality chemical companies. Defendant: European Commission (...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 20 December 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal against the Commission’s phase II decision of 17 September 2019 granting conditional approval for E. ON’s purchase of RWE’s subsidiary, Innogy ( Case M.8870). Latest development On 20 December 2023, the General Court delivered its judgment and dismissed every action. In particular, it: (i) held that an asset exchange between independent undertakings does not amount to a ‘single concentration’; and (ii) identified no manifest error in the Commission’s assessment of whether the second concentration complied with EU competition rules. Parties Applicants: EVH Gmbh ( EVH) Stadtwerke Leipzig Gmb H ( Leipzig) TEAG Thüringer Energie AG ( TEAG) GWS Stadtwerke Hameln Gmb H ( Hamelin) eins energie in sachsen Gmb H & Co. KG...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case- C- 885/19 P ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 24 September 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: Case facts Outline The action sought to annul the Commission’s decision of 21 October 2015, which held that Luxembourg’s selective tax treatment of Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe amounted to unlawful State aid ( Case SA.38375). Latest developments On 24 September 2019, the General Court delivered its judgment, confirming, among other points, that the Commission rightly determined the Luxembourg ruling reduced Fiat’s tax burden and conferred a selective advantage over other undertakings. The Court also found the Commission had shown a distortion of competition, and that the measure neither violated legal certainty nor infringed rights of...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the decision date of 13 September 2013 and is no longer updated. See further: timeline commentary related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVE—13/09/2013 Outline Appeals were brought before the General Court seeking annulment, partial annulment and/or a cut in the level of the individual penalties imposed arising from the Commission’s decision of 1 October 2008. That decision found breaches of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and levied a €128.163m fine on Total France, jointly and severally with Total SA, for alleged participation in a price-fixing and market/customer allocation cartel involving paraffin waxes across the European Economic Area ( EEA) and slack wax in Germany between 1992 and 2005 (‘ Candle waxes cartel’). On 13 September 2013, the General Court rejected Total’s case in full but granted a small decrease to Total...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C-331/20 and C-343/20 ARCHIVED This archived hub records the position as at the judgments of 13 May 2020 and is no longer maintained. For additional details, see the timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline An application seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 July 2016 on compensation granted to Sardinian airports for public service obligations ( Case SA.33983). Outcome On 13 May 2020, the General Court delivered its judgment dismissing the appeals. It found, inter alia, that the Commission: properly concluded that the airlines were beneficiaries of the aid scheme, as an advantage funded through State resources was conferred via payments attributable to the Region of Sardinia; rightly defined the compensation mechanism as an aid scheme and determined that it was liable to distort competition and to affect trade between Member States; and had not...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 27 September 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal concerning the Commission’s decision in PC video games (geo-blocking) ( AT.40413, AT.40414, AT.40420, AT.40422, AT.40424), which levied a €1.62m fine on Valve, among other parties, for concluding bilateral arrangements with five video game publishers. These arrangements curtailed parallel trade across EU Member States by stopping consumers from purchasing lower-priced games available outside the buyer’s location or country of residence. Latest development On 27 September 2023, the General Court delivered its judgment, rejecting Valve’s appeal in full......
CASE HUB ( NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 539/18) ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 26 September 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Case T-621/16, České dráhy v Commission ( Twins) — an appeal before the General Court challenging the European Commission’s decision to order inspections under Article 20 of Regulation 1/2003, connected to the ongoing so-called Twins investigation ( AT.40401). Latest development On 20 June 2018, the General Court delivered its judgment, by which it dismissed an action brought for annulment of the Commission’s decision that authorised dawn raids in question. Parties Applicant: České dráhy ( CD), the principal railway operator in the Czech Republic. Defendant: the European...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 15 October 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline Case facts Outline An application for annulment before the General Court concerning the European Commission’s decision of 19 February 2018, which concluded that remuneration paid by the Czech Republic to Česká pošta for carrying out postal services under a USO during 2013–2017 did not amount to unlawful State aid ( SA.45281 and SA.44859). Latest developments On 15 October 2020, the General Court delivered its judgment and rejected the action in full. Parties Applicants: Mediaservis s. r. o (now První novinová společnost a.s) (hereafter, Mediaservis) Defendant: European Commission (hereafter, the Commission) Background Background to the dispute On 22 February 2013, the Czech Telecommunications Regulatory Authority appointed Česká pošta s.p. (a company fully owned by the Czech Republic) (hereafter, Česká pošta) as the universal service postal...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 12 December 2018; it is no longer maintained. NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 132/19 P See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Challenge before the General Court against the European Commission’s acceptance of commitments offered by Paramount Pictures in the investigation into cross-border access to pay- TV ( Case AT.40023). Latest development On 12 December 2018, the General Court delivered its ruling, rejecting the application for annulment and thus affirming the Commission’s decision to accept Paramount’s commitments. The Court confirmed that an Article 9 commitments decision must present the Commission’s competition concerns, explain how the accepted commitments resolve them, and that no less extensive proposals would likewise address those concerns. Parties Applicant: Groupe Canal + ( Canal +) is a French film and...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 10 December 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outlin e An appeal was brought before the General Court seeking to set aside, or at least lessen, the fine arising from the Commission’s decision of 8 December 2010, which found a breach of Article 101 TFEU and levied a €5m penalty on the Ordre national des pharmaciens ( ONP) and its governing organs. The alleged conduct concerned the imposition of minimum prices for clinical laboratory testing in France and the obstruction of the formation of laboratory groups on the French market between October 2003 and September 2007. On 10 December 2014, the General Court upheld the Commission’s findings but ordered a slight reduction of the fine, cutting it from €5m to...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment of 26 June 2014 and it is no longer being maintained at present. Case facts ARCHIVE—26/06/2014 Outline An appeal to the General Court seeks the annulment of the decision of the Commission’s accounting officer dated 8 October 2010 concerning payment by instalments of the fine imposed upon the applicants by the Commission decision of 20 July 2010, adopted within a 'hybrid' settlement procedure, in relation to a cartel spanning over three decades in the European animal feed phosphates market (' Animal feed phosphates cartel'). The challenge specifically targets the condition requiring Quimitécnica to furnish a bank guarantee issued by a bank holding a long‑term ' AA' credit rating from one of three named credit rating agencies. The case turns chiefly on inability to pay and the arrangements for the payment of that...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment of 26 November 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline An appeal was brought before the General Court seeking annulment, or a reduction, of the fine imposed by the Commission’s decision of 28 March 2012, which found an infringement of Article 23 of Regulation 1/2003 and imposed a €2.5m penalty on Czech energy company Energetický and its business advisory unit, EP advisers, for allegedly obstructing an unannounced Commission inspection. The applicants alleged irregularities during the inspection: the Commission did not ensure that the relevant individuals were properly informed of their obligations and of the consequences of non‑compliance. They also claimed a breach of the ‘presumption of innocence’, asserting the case was handled with inadequate care and...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 11 July 2014; it is no longer updated. See also: timeline, commentary and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Applications were brought before the General Court seeking annulment, partial annulment and/or reductions in the amounts of certain individual fines arising from the Commission’s decision of 1 October 2008. That decision found infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and imposed aggregate penalties of €676m on nine corporate groups for their alleged involvement in a price‑fixing and market/customer sharing cartel concerning the supply of paraffin waxes within the European Economic Area ( EEA) and slack wax in Germany between 1992 and 2005 (‘ Candle waxes cartel’). On 11 July 2014, the General Court partially upheld each appeal, lowering every fine imposed and annulling the decision in so far as it...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 13 July 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and relevant/similar cases. Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court against the European Commission decision establishing an infringement and imposing fines on Stührk Delikatessen Import for its alleged role in a price-fixing cartel relating to the supply of North Sea shrimps ( AT.39633). Outcome On 13 July 2018, the General Court delivered its judgment, partially annulling the Commission’s decision in so far as it imposed a fine on Stührk Delikatessen Import; the rest of the action was dismissed, with the General Court maintaining the remainder of the decision. In particular, the General Court found that the Commission failed to provide adequate reasons for departing from the general methodology set out in the Fining Guidelines and for awarding different...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgments of 5 October 2020; it is no longer updated. For more detail, see the timeline. NOTE Appeals were brought before the Court of Justice in Cases C-682/20 P, C-690/20 and C-682/20. Case facts Outline: Applications to the General Court sought to annul the Commission’s decisions in AT.40466 and AT.40467 authorising dawn raids connected to suspected information exchanges between companies operating in the supply of hygiene and cleaning products. Outcome On 5 October 2020, the General Court delivered three judgments. It partially annulled aspects of the Commission’s 2017 inspection decisions concerning one of the alleged infringements. The Court held that the Commission had not established sufficiently compelling evidence to suspect exchanges of information relating to the supermarket chains’ prospective commercial strategies. Accordingly, this element of the Commission’s 2017 inspection decisions was set aside......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment of 23 January 2014; it is no longer maintained Case facts Outline Actions before the General Court sought annulment or a reduction of fines arising from the Commission’s decision of 22 July 2009, which held that Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA were infringed and imposed total penalties of €61.1m on nine companies for alleged involvement in a calcium carbide and magnesium cartel from 2004 to 2007. SKW Stahl- Metallurige received a penalty for its direct role in the cartel. Evonik Degussa and Gigaset were deemed liable, and fined, on the basis of parental liability: Evonik Degussa had briefly been SKW Stahl- Metallurige’s parent after the cartel began, before selling to Gigaset in 2004; Gigaset later sold SKW Stahl- Metallurige after the cartel activity had...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub sets out the position as at the date of the judgment of 20 December 2023; it is no longer being maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeals to the General Court against the European Commission’s decision identifying infringements and imposing penalties on three banks that declined to settle in respect of their involvement in a cartel in the Euro interest rate derivatives ( EIRD) market ( Case AT.39914). Latest developments On 20 December 2023, the General Court delivered its judgments, in which it partly upheld the appeals. Parties Applicants: JP Morgan Chase Crédit Agricole Defendant: European Commission Background Commission’s 2013 decision On 19 October 2011, the Commission conducted dawn raids concerning a suspected cartel in the EIRD market. On 4 December 2013, the Commission announced that four banks ( Barclays, Deutsche Bank, Société Générale and RBS) had settled with the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment dated 16 May 2018 and is no longer maintained. See the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline An appeal was brought before the General Court challenging the European Commission’s refusal to grant a partial waiver of commitments accepted in Case M.3770 Lufthansa/ Swiss. Latest development On 16 May 2018, the General Court delivered its judgment and partially annulled the Commission’s decision rejecting the request for a partial waiver of commitments in Case M.3770 Lufthansa/ Swiss. The Court found the Commission had not assessed all relevant material, including the termination of a joint venture agreement, and had failed to consider a shift in its policy regarding the evaluation of codeshare agreements. Consequently, it annulled the decision insofar as it rejected the waiver for the Zurich– Stockholm route, where contractual...
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
