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 reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 16 September 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/similar cases Case facts ( ARCHIVE—16/09/2013) Outline Applications were lodged before the General Court seeking annulment and/or reductions of fines stemming from the Commission’s decision of 23 June 2010, which found infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and imposed total penalties of €622m on bathroom equipment manufacturers for their alleged involvement in a single, continuous infringement in the bathroom fixtures and fittings sector (‘ Bathroom fittings and fixtures cartel’). On 16 September 2013 the General Court rejected in full the actions of the following: Masco Mamoli Zucchetti Rubinetteria Cisal Laufen Dornbracht Hansa Metallwerke In the remaining cases, the Court partially annulled the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 26 September 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline On 26 September 2018, the General Court delivered its ruling in Case T‑574/14 – EAEPC v Commission, brought to annul a Commission decision in Case COMP/ AT.36957 ( Glaxo Wellcome). By that decision, the Commission rejected an EAEPC complaint, thereby declining to pursue any further, additional inquiries into an alleged breach of Article 101 TFEU by Glaxo Wellcome SA (now Glaxo Smith Kline SA). The General Court dismissed the action. Outcome On 26 September 2018, the General Court gave judgment, rejecting the application for annulment and dismissing the action in full. Parties Applicant: the European Association of Euro‑ Pharmaceutical Companies ( EAEPC). EAEPC is a European association representing the interests of independent companies...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment of 15 July 2015 and is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. NOTE Appeal lodged by Akzo Nobel at the Court of Justice in Case C-516/15 Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission ( Heat stabilisers cartel). Case facts Outline Appeals to the General Court sought annulment and/or a reduction of the fines arising from the Commission’s decision of 11 November 2009, as later amended. That decision found infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA and imposed penalties of €168.4m and €3.803m on Akzo Group and GEA Group respectively, linked to alleged participation in EEA-wide cartels on the market for tin and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers (‘ Heat stabilisers cartel’). On 15 July 2015, the General Court partially annulled the infringement decision insofar as it concerned the fines imposed on Akzo and...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 15 January 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts Ziegler brought an action for damages before the General Court, seeking compensation for loss the applicants claim to have suffered following an infringement decision and fine imposed on Ziegler for involvement in a cartel supplying international removal services in Belgium. Outline The applicants contend that the European Union bears partial responsibility for the confirmed infringement, notably because Commission officials requested cover quotations for their own international removals and relocations. Parties Applicants: Ziegler SA ( Ziegler) Ziegler Relocation SA ( Ziegler Relocation) Defendant: European Commission Ziegler Relocation is a subsidiary of Ziegler. Since 2003, Ziegler Relocation has been the Ziegler group entity responsible for carrying out removal services. It has performed...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment dated 16 January 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Case T-257/18 Iberpotash S. A. v Commission — proceedings to annul the European Commission’s decision that aid granted to Iberpotash was unlawful and must be recovered ( Case SA.35818). Latest developments On 19 December 2019, the General Court delivered its ruling and dismissed the appeal in full. Among other points, it held the Commission did not err in finding the aid could affect State resources, that it conferred a selective advantage, and that the amount was correctly determined. Parties Applicant: Iberpotash S. A. (renamed ICL Iberia Súria & Sallent in 2014) (together, Iberpotash): the company owns and runs several potash mines in the Catalonia region of...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 27 March 2014; it is no longer updated. See also: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeals were brought before the General Court seeking to annul in part, and to cut the level of the fine, arising from the Commission’s decision of 12 November 2008 (as modified by the decision of 11 February 2009). That decision found breaches of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and levied a record individual penalty of €896m, later reduced to €880m, on Saint‑ Gobain, with total fines exceeding €1.35b on Saint‑ Gobain and three other group entities, for taking part in an EEA‑wide car glass cartel between 1998 and 2003. The issues include recidivism, and, in particular, whether intervals between infringements prevent the Commission from relying on earlier...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment of 23 September 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Following the Court of Justice’s ruling in Case C-128/16, the matter was sent back to the General Court. That appeal contested the General Court’s prior judgment annulling the Commission’s decision of 17 July 2013 ( Case SA.212333), which had concluded that a Spanish scheme for acquiring ships, using leasing and financing through tax relief, constituted unlawful State aid. Latest developments On 23 September 2020, the General Court delivered its judgment, finding that the tax leasing arrangement for purchasing ships, involving leasing and tax relief-based financing, amounted to unlawful State aid, and that the aid granted under the programme must be recovered from the beneficiaries......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 31 January 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court against Commission Decision C (2017) 249 final of 13 January 2017, whereby the Commission formally declined the applicant’s request submitted for access to documents in relation to the case SA.40224. Latest developments On 31 January 2020, the General Court handed down its judgment, thereby rejecting the action in its entirety. Parties Applicant: CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs Gmb H (hereafter, CBA). CBA is an Austrian company whose core business is the organisation and running of casinos in Austria and in other countries in the EU. Defendant: European Commission (the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived hub records the position as at the judgment dated 21 January 2015 and is no longer updated. For further details, see: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court seeking to annul the Commission decision of 3 May 2013 refusing a complaint lodged by easy Jet on 11 January 2011. The complaint alleged an infringement of Article 102 TFEU by NV Luchthaven Schiphol concerning airport charges that easy Jet said were excessive and discriminatory, and an abuse of NV Luchthaven Schiphol’s dominant position as operator of Amsterdam- Schipol airport. The Commission rejected the case because the Dutch authority had already addressed the matter and, consequently, a breach of competition law was considered unlikely. On 21 January 2015, the General Court dismissed easy Jet’s action for annulment. The case highlights the Commission’s process and discretion in handling...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 301/19 P ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment of 12 February 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court against the Commission to recover interest retained by the Commission after reimbursing a fine imposed in the envelopes cartel ( AT.39780). Outcome On 12 February 2019, the General Court delivered its judgment ordering the Commission to pay €184,592.95 in damages, corresponding to the default interest running from Printeos’ original fine payment to the refund following annulment, together with additional interest arising from its refusal to pay interest on the repaid cartel fine. Parties Applicant: Printeos, SA ( Printeos), a Spanish envelope manufacturer. Defendant: European Commission......
This tracker outlines and condenses concluded competition General Court cases that are not appeals. For live General Court appeal matters, see General Court appeals—ongoing cases tracker. 2026 Case Issues Developments Case T- 313/21 SAS Cargo Group and Others v Commission Proceedings alleging the Commission’s omission to pay the Default Interest Amount Payable and the Compound Interest Amount Payable as ordered by the General Court in multiple judgments, including Case T- 39/11. See Application Judgment given—25/03/2026; damages claim partly upheld. The General Court grants damages for the Commission’s non-payment of interest following the 2015 annulment of the Airfreight cartel decision Hearing held—05/06/2025 Lodged—03/06/2021 Case T- 310/21 Air Canada v Commission Proceedings contesting the Commission’s failure to settle the Default Interest Amount Payable and the Compound Interest Amount Payable as mandated by the General Court in a series of judgments, including Case T- 39/11. See...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub captures position as at the judgment of 14 March 2014; it is no longer maintained. See: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVE—14/03/2014 Outline Appeals were brought before the General Court seeking to annul the Commission’s decision of 30 March 2011, which required the addressees to provide information within the framework of what was then an on‑going inquiry into suspected anti‑competitive conduct in the Europe‑wide markets for cement and associated products. On 14 March 2014, the General Court rejected all actions in full, save for the action lodged by Schwenk Zement, which was upheld in part. On 31 July 2015, the Commission terminated its investigation, stating that the material gathered was not sufficiently decisive to sustain its initial concerns. These proceedings address, amongst other matters, questions concerning the correct and lawful use of the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment date of 13 December 2016 and is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and relevant/similar cases Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court seeking cancellation or a reduction of the €4.729m fine imposed, on a joint and several basis, on Printeos and its Tompla subsidiaries under the Commission’s settlement decision of 14 December 2014, concerning Tompla’s participation in a price-fixing cartel relating to the supply of envelopes in Europe (‘ Envelopes cartel’). The matter is confined to issues concerning the calculation of fines and, in particular, the Commission’s discretion (under paragraph 37 of the 2006 Fining Guidelines) to depart, in specific instances, from the Guidelines’ general methodology for setting fines. Such a departure may, for example, be made to ensure penalties are...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment dated 31 January 2024; it is no longer updated. See the timeline for further details. Case facts Outline Appeal against the Commission’s phase II decision of 15 May 2020, which partly lifted commitments imposed as a condition for clearing Nidec’s purchase of Embraco, Whirlpool’s compressor business ( Case M.8947). Latest development On 25 January 2023, the General Court delivered its judgment, upholding the appeal and setting aside the Commission’s decision. It found an error of law, because the Commission failed, in its decision, to check whether the relevant market’s structure had undergone a lasting change during the ten months between the concentration’s authorisation and the request to partly remove the prohibition on Nidec’s repurchase. Parties Applicant: Italia Wanbao Srl ( Italia Wanbao) Defendant: European Commission (the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment of 9 September 2020 and is no longer maintained. See further: timeline Case facts Outline Proceedings were brought seeking annulment before the General Court of the European Commission’s decision of 20 July 2017, which concluded that Slovakia’s €5m direct grant to NAJPI, relating to investment in a new plant for extracting glass sand, did not amount to unlawful State aid ( Case SA.38121) Latest developments On 9 September 2020, the General Court allowed the appeal and annulled the Contested Decision in full Parties Applicants: Kerkosand spol. s.r.o. (Šajdíkové Humence, Slovak Republic) (hereafter, Kerkosand) Defendant: European Commission (hereafter, the Commission) Background Background In 2013, Slovakia authorised a €5m direct grant to NAJPI for an initial investment in a new facility for the extraction of glass sand in the Západné Slovensko region. Slovakia stated that the aid to NAJPI was...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 14/24 ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 25 October 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline An appeal was brought before the General Court contesting the European Commission’s decision that found an infringement of Article 102 TFEU and imposed a fine on Bulgarian Energy Holding, its gas supplier Bulgargaz EAD, and the infrastructure operator Bulgartransgaz EAD, for abusing their dominant positions by restricting competitors’ access to essential gas supply infrastructure in Bulgaria ( AT.39849). Outcome On 25 October 2023, the General Court delivered its judgment and upheld the appeal. Among other findings, it concluded that the Commission had erred in its assessment of abuse of dominance and had breached the rights of...
Case hub note—an appeal has been filed at the Court of Justice in Case C‑122/16, British Airways v Commission. Claims for damages have also been brought before the General Court in: T‑80/21 T‑291/21 T‑292/21 T‑313/21 T‑310/21 Archived—this case hub records the position as at the judgment of 16 December 2015 and is no longer updated. See also: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Appeals were brought before the General Court seeking to annul, or at least markedly cut, the fines imposed under the Commission’s decision of 9 November 2010. That decision found a single, ongoing breach of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on air transport, and levied penalties totalling €799.45m on eleven undertakings active in international air cargo services for their alleged participation in a worldwide cartel in...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 14 April 2021; 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 8 January 2019, which determined that Lithuanian support for (i) electricity generated from renewable energy sources and (ii) electro‑intensive users was in line with the State aid rules ( Case SA.45765) Latest developments On 14 April 2021, the General Court handed down its judgment, upholding the appeal. Parties Applicants: Achema AB (hereafter, Achema) and Lifosa AB (hereafter, Lifosa) (together, the Applicants) Defendant: European Commission Background On 27 January 2016, the Applicants (amongst others) submitted a formal complaint to the Commission (the 2016 complaint) alleging unlawful aid granted by Lithuania to producers of electricity from renewable energy sources (...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C- 12/18 P and C- 465/20 P ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgments of 15 July 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline An application seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 30 August 2016, which concluded that the Republic of Ireland had conferred unlawful State aid on Apple via selective tax treatment ( Case SA.38373). Outcome On 15 July 2020, the General Court handed down its judgment, allowing the appeals because the European Commission did not establish, to the requisite legal standard, the existence of an advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU. Parties Appellants Ireland. Apple Sales International ( ASI) and Apple Operations Europe ( AOE). ASI and AOE are...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 440/19 P ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 28 March 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline: Appeal before the General Court against the European Commission’s decision that found an infringement and levied fines on, amongst others, Pometon, for taking part in the steel abrasives cartel across the EEA, as set out by the authority. Outcome On 28 March 2019, the General Court delivered its ruling in its judgment, dismissing Pometon’s broader challenge by concluding the Commission had not violated Pometon’s rights of defence or the presumption of innocence, and thus rejected those grounds of appeal. Yet it partially upheld the appeal by cutting the fine from €6.2m to...
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
