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 summarises the situation as at the judgment dated 17 September 2019; it is no longer being maintained. For more, see the timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline An action for annulment was brought before the General Court against the Commission decision of 7 February 2007 concerning exemptions from excise duty for mineral oils used as fuel in alumina production ( Case SA.12186). The Commission determined that 80% of the tax relief granted by the Irish Government to Aughinish Alumina Ltd was lawful, and ordered recovery of the remaining 20% of the relief amount. Latest developments On 17 September 2019, the General Court delivered its judgment, dismissing in full the appeals lodged by Ireland and Aughinish Alumina Ltd, and holding that the excise duty exemptions for mineral oils used as fuel in alumina manufacture infringed the State Aid rules......
CASE HUB (appeals filed before the General Court in Cases T-404/12 ( Toshiba) and T-409/12 ( Mitsubishi)—see Cases T-404/12 Toshiba v Commission and T-409/12 Mitsubishi Electric v Commission) ARCHIVED —this case hub shows the status as at the 27 June 2012 decision and is no longer updated. Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU inquiry into a price-fixing cartel concerning gas insulated switchgear ( COMP/39.966) Latest developments On 27 June 2012, the Commission issued a new decision. The penalties for Mitsubishi and Toshiba were reworked as follows: Mitsubishi, solely responsible—€74.871m; Toshiba, solely responsible—€56.793m; Both also jointly responsible for €4.65m for infringement by their JV ( TM T& D). Parties Mitsubishi and Toshiba......
ARCHIVED — this archived case hub records the position as at the decision date of 24 September 2024; it is no longer maintained CASE HUB See further, timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission FSR investigation into the planned acquisition by Emirates Telecommunications Group Company PJSC of PPF Telecom Group (excluding its Czech business) ( FS.100011). The deal features a horizontal overlap in the market for telecommunication services. Latest developments On 24 September 2024, the Commission granted conditional approval, subject to commitments. The Commission accepted a set of behavioural remedies: Removal of the United Arab Emirates’ unlimited state guarantee; Emirates Telecommunications Group Company PJSC is prohibited from providing any financing (debt or equity) to PPF Telecom Group BV where this in any way relates to PPF Telecom Group BV’s activities in the EU (with certain limited exceptions for non‑ EU activities and ‘emergency funding’), and transactions outside this perimeter must be on market...
On 12 January 2023, Council Regulation ( EU) 2022/2560 of 14 December 2022 on foreign subsidies that distort the internal market (the FSR) came into effect. On 10 July 2023, the European Commission ( Commission) adopted Council Regulation ( EU) 2023/1441, the Implementing Regulation, which lays down detailed arrangements for how the Commission conducts proceedings under Regulation ( EU) 2022/2560 of the European Parliament and of the Council on foreign subsidies distorting the internal market, setting out procedural rules for putting the FSR into practice. The FSR establishes a new framework to tackle distortions of competition within the EU internal market arising from foreign subsidies. It introduces mandatory notification and clearance obligations for takeovers of significant EU businesses and for sizeable EU public procurement, and grants the Commission wide-ranging powers to open ex officio inquiries. The notification obligations have applied since 12 October...
On 12 January 2023, Council Regulation ( EU) 2022/2560 of 14 December 2022 on foreign subsidies distorting the internal market ( FSR) took effect. On 10 July 2023, the European Commission adopted Council Regulation ( EU) 2023/1441 of 10 July 2023 on detailed arrangements for the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Regulation ( EU) 2022/2560 of the European Parliament and the Council on foreign subsidies distorting the internal market ( Implementing Regulation), which sets out the procedural rules for putting the FSR into practice. The FSR establishes a new system designed to address distortions to competition in the EU internal market stemming from foreign subsidies. It introduces compulsory notification and clearance duties for substantial EU public tenders and for takeovers of significant EU businesses, and grants the Commission broad powers to commence ex officio inquiries. The...
This note records and outlines every appeal before the General Court connected to the EU’s Foreign Subsidies Regulation ( FSR). For active European Commission FSR enquiries, consult Foreign Subsidies Regulation—ongoing cases tracker. For information on all concluded Commission preliminary enquiries, see also: FSR preliminary enquiries—closed cases......
1. What is the applicable legislation? The applicable legislation is Regulation ( EU) 2019/452 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 (the Regulation), which establishes a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments ( FDI) into the Union. The Regulation was published on 21 March 2019 and entered into force on 10 April 2019, while its provisions became fully applicable from 11 October 2020, following an 18‑month transition period. As a preliminary note, the instrument does not create a fully‑fledged new EU‑level foreign investment control regime, nor does it replace national rules already in place. Instead, it sets up a framework to complement domestic systems for screening FDI into the EU, and encompasses: a mechanism for cooperation and the exchange of information between EU Member States, as well as between authorities and the European...
CASE HUB See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Commission Digital Markets Act inquiry into ’s: (i) App Store steering rules, (ii) adherence to user choice obligations, and (iii) contractual terms. Latest development On 23 April 2025, the Commission adopted an infringement decision and imposed fines totalling €500m on for violating its anti‑steering obligation under the DMA. On the same day, the Commission: (i) closed its investigation into 's user choice obligations under the DMA; and (ii) informed of its preliminary view that 's terms for alternative app distribution contravene the DMA. Parties • Background On 5 September 2023, the Commission designated , amongst other undertakings, as a ‘gatekeeper’, requiring compliance with all DMA obligations. On 25 March 2024, the Commission launched two non‑compliance probes into ’s: (i) rules on steering for the App Store; and (ii) compliance with user choice duties. On 24 June 2024, the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision dated 23 April 2025 and is no longer updated or revised. See the timeline for more details and context. Case facts Overview: Commission investigation under the Digital Markets Act into Meta’s ‘pay or consent’ advertising model. Latest development On 23 April 2025, the Commission adopted an infringement decision and imposed fines totalling €200m on Meta for breaching the DMA duty to give consumers the option of a service that relies on less of their personal data. Parties Meta Platforms Inc ( Meta): a US-based technology conglomerate. Meta offers various online products and services to UK users, including well-known platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and Whats App. Background On 5 September 2023, the Commission designated Meta (amongst other undertakings) as a ‘gatekeeper’, meaning it must comply with all obligations under the DMA......
The Court of Justice of the European Union Headquartered in Luxembourg, the Court of Justice of the European Union is made up of two courts: the Court of Justice and the General Court (the Civil Service Tribunal was integrated into the General Court in September 2016) overall......
This section records concluded Court of Justice appeals related to State aid ( Articles 107 to 109 TFEU) and other measures for the recovery of aid from 1 June 2015 onwards. For pending Court of Justice appeals and recovery actions (including rulings from the last 30 days), consult Court of Justice State aid appeals—ongoing cases tracker. For information on completed State aid appeals before the General Court, see General Court State aid appeals—closed cases tracker, and for closed national reference matters before the Court of Justice involving State aid, see Court of Justice State aid national references—closed cases tracker. Appeals from the General Court 2026 Case C‑457/23 P Deutsche Lufthansa v Ryanair and Others Appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T‑34/21, which upheld an action to annul the Commission decision in State aid Case SA.57153 approving the €6bn...
The table below collates and summarises all appeals presently pending before the Court of Justice concerning the EU’s Digital Markets Act ( DMA) (ie applications seeking annulment of Commission decisions). For appeals pending before......
2026 Case Judgment being appealed/issues Latest development The tables below list completed Court of Justice appeal matters relating to the EU Merger Regulation. For live Court of Justice appeals, see Court of Justice appeals—ongoing cases tracker. For information on concluded General Court appeals under the EU Merger Regulation, see General Court EUMR appeals—closed cases tracker. Joined Cases C-178/24 P Mainova v Commission and Case C-179/24 P enercity v Commission: challenges to the General Court’s judgment in Case T-53/21 rejecting actions to annul the Commission’s decision in E. ON/ Innogy ( M.8870). See Application ( C-178/24 P) and Application ( C-179/24 P). Judgment: 19/03/2026—appeals dismissed; Lodged: 01/03/2024. Joined Cases C-171/24 P EVH v Commission, C-172/24 P tadtwerke Leipzig v Commission, C-173/24 P TEAG v Commission, C-174/24 P Stadtwerke Hameln...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 12 December 2016 and is no longer being maintained. See further: timeline commentary related/relevant cases Case facts The General Court had annulled two Commission decisions: (1) the decision of 5 March 2008 finding that the Greek state’s retention of preferential rights benefiting Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou AE ( DEI) over the exploration and exploitation of lignite deposits was incompatible with Article 86(1) EC, read together with Article 82 EC; and (2) the decision of 4 August 2009 prescribing targeted measures to address the anticompetitive effects identified in the 5 March 2008 decision ( Case COMP/ B-1/38.700— Greek Lignite). Outline Following the Court of Justice’s judgments in Cases C-553/12 P Commission v DEI and C-554/12 P Commission v DEI, which set aside the General Court’s rulings annulling those Commission decisions, the matter was sent back to the...
CASE HUB (date of judgment—27/04/2017) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVED — this archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision of 27 April 2017; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeal lodged against the General Court’s ruling partially setting aside the Commission’s decision in relation to a penalty on Akzo (reduced to €40.194m under that ruling) for Akzo group companies’ alleged involvement in EEA‑wide cartels on the market for tin and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers (‘ Heat stabilisers cartel’). In particular, Akzo challenges the General Court’s judgment to the extent it finds that fines initially imposed on two Akzo subsidiaries for their participation in the infringements can still be ascribed to Akzo, even though the General Court annulled the subsidiaries’ penalties. On 27 April 2017, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal in full and thereby affirmed the General Court’s ruling (and the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the state of play as at the date of the re‑adopted decision of 16 June 2017; it is no longer updated. For further detail, see the timeline and commentary. NOTE— Printeos and Tompla filed an appeal against the original decision in Case T‑95/15; that appeal culminated in the re‑adopted decision of 16/06/2017. Case facts ARCHIVE 16/06/2017 Outline European Commission investigation under Article 101 TFEU into a cartel on the paper envelopes market ( AT.39780). Latest development On 16 June 2017, following the General Court’s annulment of the first decision, the Commission re‑adopted a decision against Printeos and Tompla. A €4.729m fine was re‑imposed, unchanged from the initial amount. The re‑adoption remedies the procedural flaw identified by the General Court. Parties Bong, based in Sweden GPV, based in France Hameline, based in France Mayer‑ Kuvert, based in Germany ...
CASE HUB (date of judgment—24/06/2015) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases ARCHIVED — this archived case hub captures the position as at the decision date of 24 June 2015; it is not being updated Case facts Outline Del Monte lodged appeals against the General Court’s ruling which, in essence, confirmed the Commission’s decision of 15 October 2008 finding an infringement and levying a €14.7m fine on Del Monte, jointly and severally with Weichert, for allegedly taking part in a cartel concerning supplies of fresh bananas to the northern European region (‘ Bananas cartel’). The General Court nonetheless cut Del Monte’s individual penalty owing to purported errors in the fine calculation and for affording too little credit to Weichert’s cooperation during the administrative phase. That adjustment to Del Monte/ Weichert’s individual fine formed the basis of the Commission’s own appeal to the Court of Justice. On 24 June 2015, the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 5 December 2013; it is no longer being maintained. Case facts Outline Appeals were lodged by the European Commission and four appellants against the General Court’s judgments which, broadly and in substance, upheld the Commission’s decision of 3 May 2006 imposing fines on the parties (and others) for involvement in a cartel relating to the supply of hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate—while partially annulling that decision in respect of Solvay and thereby reducing the fine imposed on it (prompting a cross-appeal by the Commission). The Commission also brought a separate appeal concerning the General Court’s judgment that annulled the decision (and the fine) as regards Edison’s alleged role in the infringement. The case turns chiefly on the attribution of a subsidiary’s anti-competitive conduct to its parent company, including analysis of the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 4 July 2013 and is no longer maintained. For further details, see: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline The European Commission appealed against the General Court’s judgment which, in so far as it related to Aalberts Industries NV and two of its subsidiaries, annulled the Commission’s decision and the fines for participation in a cartel affecting the European market for copper and copper‑alloy fittings from 1998 to 2004. Aalberts and its two subsidiaries filed a cross‑appeal in the event the Court of Justice were to uphold the Commission’s appeal. The case turns chiefly on the concept of a ‘ Single continuous infringement’ and, in particular, the evidential standard the Commission must satisfy to establish such...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeals lodged before the General Court in Cases T-873/16 and T-358/18 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision of 31 March 2020; it is no longer updated. See also timetable, commentary and related cases. Note—a third party challenged the Commission’s acceptance of commitments from Paramount; this was rejected in Case T-873/16 Groupe Canal + v Commission. Case facts Outline European Commission investigation under Article 101 TFEU into restrictive arrangements in the pay‑ TV services sector concerning studios’ licensing of film content to pay‑ TV broadcasters (case AT.40023). Latest development On 31 March 2021, the Commission stated it had withdrawn its 7 March 2019 decision that had made commitments binding on Disney, NBCUniversal, Sony Pictures, Warner Bros and Sky. The withdrawal followed the Court of Justice annulling the Commission’s earlier 26 July 2016 decision imposing comparable commitments on Paramount Pictures (see Case...
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
