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
ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and no longer maintained. On 10 May 2022, the Commission introduced the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation 2022/720 ( VBER 2022). From 1 June 2022, VBER 2022 superseded the earlier Vertical Restraints Block Exemption Regulation 330/2010 ( VBER 2010, also termed the VRBE in this Practice Note). This Practice Note was prepared with reference to VBER 2010. Note: VBER 2010 lapsed on 31 May 2022 and was replaced by VBER 2022 with effect from 1 June 2022. Under Article 10 of VBER 2022, a 12-month transitional period (ending 31 May 2023) applied to pre-existing vertical agreements in force on 31 May 2022 that satisfied the exemption conditions under VBER 2010 on that date but did not meet the exemption requirements of VBER 2022. Consequently, this Practice Note is supplied for background information only......
The principle of economic continuity allows the European Commission (the Commission) to assign liability for a breach of EU competition law to a legal person that did not itself carry out the infringement. Although often portrayed as an exception to the principle of personal responsibility, its application is confined within strict limits set by the EU Courts. Rationale behind the economic continuity principle Responsibility for a competition law infringement is, in principle, personal, given the nature and seriousness of the penalties that may follow. Consequently, the Commission usually attributes liability to the legal person that operated the infringing business when the conduct occurred (the initial operator): this reflects the principle of personal responsibility. However, in certain situations, a rigid, formal application of personal responsibility can impede effective enforcement, for instance where the initial operator no longer exists or has undergone...
ARCHIVED: Revised Horizontal Guidelines were published in the Official Journal on 21 July 2023. This Practice Note was produced with the previous Horizontal Guidelines in mind and is no longer maintained. For up to date content, please refer to the relevant section in Practice Note: Analysing horizontal co-operation agreements under EU competition law. Standardisation (or standard-setting) is widely practised and has a pivotal role across many industries and in society more broadly, delivering clear advantages, such as: stimulating innovation assuring product quality and safety enabling interoperability/compatibility reducing transaction costs Agreements on standards primarily seek to establish technical or quality requirements that current or future production processes, methods or products must meet, for instance to ensure compatibility between products designed to work together. Standardisation agreements may cover a range of matters, including harmonising different grades or sizes of a particular product, or setting...
CASE HUB (appeals lodged at the General Court in Cases T- 680/14 ( Lupin), T-682/14 ( Mylan), T-679/14 ( Teva), T-6824/14 ( Krka), T-701/14 ( Niche Generics) and T-701/14 ( Unichem)) ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 9 July 2014; it is no longer maintained. See the timeline, commentary and related cases for further detail. Case facts outline: The European Commission pursued an Articles 101 and 102 TFEU inquiry into Servier and others concerning Perindopril ( COMP/39.612), issuing fines totalling €427.7m on 09/07/2014. On 9 July 2014, sanctions were imposed on Servier and five generic manufacturers, amounting in aggregate to €427.7m. Servier was ordered to pay €330.9972m for breaches of both Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. For the generic companies: Niche and Unichem were fined €13,968,773 (jointly and severally liable), Matrix was fined...
There are many legitimate grounds for companies to enter agreements that include terms or obligations which may curb competition. This is particularly so where the arrangement is put in place to create or foster beneficial outcomes—so‑called ‘efficiencies’—that would not arise without the restriction. In broad terms, such efficiencies stem from vertically or horizontally aligned businesses collaborating to achieve something that, on their own, they could not accomplish—or at least not as efficiently—owing to financial, technical and/or logistical constraints. Research and development, production, purchasing, and distribution/sales constitute distinct stages in the supply chain, with firms at each step deciding whether to undertake the process alone or with others. When collective rather than individual action is optimal, the parties may agree to restraints or obligations considered necessary to safeguard an investment connected to, for instance: the development of a...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 14 March 2019 and is no longer updated. For more, see the timeline, commentary, and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C‑724/17 Vantaan Kaupunki v Skanska Industrial Solutions and others – a preliminary reference from Finland asking whether, in a damages action, a company that has carried on the economic activity of a cartel member can be held liable for infringing Article 101 TFEU. Latest developments On 6 February 2019, Advocate General Wahl issued his opinion, concluding that Article 101 TFEU should be interpreted so that, when determining who is liable to pay damages for harm caused by a breach of Article 101 TFEU, the principle of economic continuity applies. Accordingly, in a private damages claim before a national court, a claimant may seek compensation from a company that has...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED Archived case hub –this page provides a snapshot of the position as at the judgment dated 20 November 2011; it is no longer currently maintained......
Intellectual property ( IP) agreements IP arrangements—such as technology licensing or collaborating on the creation of new technologies—can restrict competition. Yet their pro‑competitive advantages are acknowledged through block exemptions that offer a ‘safe harbour’ from Article 101, TFEU. Where a deal sits squarely within a relevant block exemption, only a brief review of Article 101, TFEU concerns is typically required. In practice, though, multiple block exemptions may seem to apply, and confirming that an agreement truly benefits from a safe harbour can be challenging—so a more pragmatic assessment of everyday commercial deals is often warranted. Most block exemptions share a common framework, and understanding this helps with application of the rules. Recitals: set out the overarching aim and rationale of the instrument. Definitions: clarify key terms that shape how the exemption should operate. Scope of the ‘safe harbour’:...
A joint venture is a business set-up in which two or more separate undertakings bring together, or share, their resources, assets, or divisions to build a venture or pursue a defined objective, typically over a limited timeframe, for all parties. The logic behind joint venture work is that collaboration delivers more than effort alone, whether with a supplier up the chain or a rival on the same level, through interests and strengths. EU law offers no precise legal definition of a joint venture at present. Such ventures may span merger-style initiatives creating a jointly controlled entity, with its assets, infrastructure, management and customers, through to loose, non-structural collaboration that stops short of forming a separate organisation. At one end, activity might involve light-touch and plainly harmless collaboration, confined to specific functions or tasks, such as research and development or joint purchasing; at the other, it may...
Developments This Practice Note provides an archived overview of the principal legal changes influencing EU competition law across 2017 to 2026... Commission’s Report on Competition Policy 2025: The Commission issued its 2025 Competition Policy Report, outlining the year’s core legislative actions, policy progress and a curated set of enforcement cases for citizens, businesses and the competition policy community • Report published—05/05/2026 Antitrust, Mergers, State aid, Digital Markets Act and Foreign Subsidies (2024–2029): The Commission released an updated timeline charting all planned revisions and updates to competition policy for the period 2024–2029 • Updated timeline published—27/04/2026 Commission appoints a new Director- General in its Directorate- General for Competition: Anthony Whelan was appointed as the new Director- General of the Directorate- General for Competition • Announcement made—13/04/2026 EU and UK agree to cooperate closely on competition matters: The Commission confirmed that the EU and the...
ARCHIVED—this case hub, now archived, sets out the position as at the decision date of 10 September 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission investigation under Article 107 TFEU/ Article 102 TFEU into the grant to PPC of preferential access to lignite ( Case AT.38700). Latest development On 10 September 2021, the Commission approved measures proposed by Greece enabling PPC’s competitors to buy more electricity on a longer-term basis (the Commission’s 2021 decision). The remedies will lapse when existing lignite plants cease commercial operation (currently expected by 2023) or, at the latest, by 31 December 2024. Parties Public Power Corporation ( PPC): the largest electricity company in Greece, controlled by the Greek government, which holds a majority of the issued shares (51.12%). Market(s) The market for the supply of...
CASE HUB Discover more, including the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Overview of a European Commission merger probe under Article 14(1) concerning allegedly inaccurate or misleading information supplied by Kingspan Group plc during the Commission’s 2021 review of Kingspan Group plc’s proposed purchase of Trimo, arhitekturne rešitve, d.o.o. ( M.10962). Latest developments On 19 March 2023, the Commission sent Kingspan Group plc a statement of objections, asserting that incorrect or misleading information was provided in the course of the 2021 merger assessment. Parties Kingspan Group plc ( Kingspan): Headquartered in Ireland. Its core business covers the manufacture of sandwich panels, insulation, light & air solutions, water & energy, and data & flooring technology. Kingspan operates manufacturing and distribution networks across Europe, the Far East and the Americas, with a presence in more than 70 countries. Trimo, arhitekturne rešitve, d.o.o ( Trimo): Based in Trebnje,...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the situation as at the date the Commission decided to accept commitments on 17 July 2025; it is no longer updated. See further, timeline Case facts Outline European Commission ( Commission) Article 102 TFEU inquiry into whether Corning misused its dominant position by entering anti-competitive exclusive supply deals with mobile phone makers and firms that process raw glass ( AT.40728). Latest development On 17 July 2025, the Commission accepted revised commitments from Corning (see details below), and accordingly brought its investigation to a close. Parties Corning Inc ( Corning): Corning, headquartered in the US, is a worldwide glass manufacturer serving numerous industrial and consumer uses. Background On 6 November 2024, the Commission opened its investigation. Corning submitted initial commitments to the Commission and, on 25 November 2024, the Commission initiated a market test of those initial commitments (see details...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 24 July 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission inquiry under Article 101 TFEU into vertical constraints on online sales of consumer electronic goods imposed by Philips ( Case AT.40181). Latest developments On 24 July 2018, the Commission adopted an infringement decision against Philips, levying a €29.828m penalty (following an ‘informal settlement’) for dictating fixed or minimum resale prices to its online retailers, in breach of Article 101 TFEU. Parties Philips is a Netherlands-based manufacturer producing a variety of consumer electronic products. Background The Commission launched its investigation in February 2017, following information obtained during its e-commerce sector inquiry. Market(s) Markets covering the production, distribution and retailing of consumer electronic products......
CASE HUB (appeal lodged at General Court by Riberebro in Case T- 313/16) ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the final decision of 6 April 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline: European Commission inquiry under Article 101 TFEU into a cartel operating within the canned mushrooms sector ( AT.39965). The collusion featured exchanges of information, price‑fixing, predetermined volume objectives, and sharing out of customers. Latest developments On 6 April 2016, the Commission adopted an infringement decision against Riberebro and levied a penalty of €5.194m. The amount reflected a 50% discount for leniency. This followed the Commission’s earlier infringement decision, issued on 25 June 2014 after a settlement, with fines of €32.2m on Lutèce, Prochamp and Bonduelle......
Competition concerns arising from collective dominance and oligopolies can be addressed under EU competition law, namely: Article 101 TFEU Article 102 TFEU the EU Merger Regulation ( EUMR) This Practice Note examines collective dominance and oligopoly matters outside Article 101 TFEU. The idea of collective dominance has developed through case law under Article 102 TFEU and the EUMR. While the case law indicates the concept is alike under both, there are key differences in the assessment undertaken in each setting. Collective dominance and Article 102 TFEU Article 102 TFEU prohibits abuses by one or more undertakings of a dominant position (see further, The prohibition on abuse of dominance). EU case law confirms Article 102 TFEU also covers abuses where a dominant position is held collectively by several undertakings that may not, individually, be dominant. To establish an abuse of collective dominance contrary to Article 102 TFEU, it...
CASE HUB (date of judgment—18/12/2014) For further information: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. ARCHIVED — this archived entry captures the position as at the decision date of 18 December 2014 and is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline An appeal was lodged by the Commission against the General Court’s judgment, which had in part annulled the Commission decision of 28 January 2009 and lowered the fine imposed on Parker ITR for its involvement in a worldwide cartel concerning the supply of marine hose between 1986 and 2007 (‘ Marine hoses cartel’). On 18 December 2014, the Court of Justice upheld the Commission’s appeal, set aside the General Court’s judgment (paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the operative part of the judgment) and sent the case back to the General Court......
The European Commission’s ( Commission) leniency programme This scheme incentivises undertakings involved in cartels (contrary to Article 101 TFEU) to provide evidence and information that enables the Commission to open an investigation. Leniency is available only to undertakings that have participated in a cartel; it does not apply to other breaches of EU competition law. Two core principles underpin the Commission’s leniency programme: The sooner an applicant contacts the Commission, the greater the reward, potentially amounting to immunity from the fine or a reduction in the fine; The extent of any reward depends on the added value of the information supplied over and above what the Commission already possesses. ......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 27 June 2012; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into water management products (case number COMP/39.611). Latest developments On 27 June 2012, the Commission delivered its infringement decision. Following settlement, fines totalling €13m were levied......
CASE HUB (appeals lodged at General Court in Case T- 361/17 ( Eco- Bat), Case T- 240/17 ( Campine) and Case T- 222/17 ( Recylex)) ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 8 February 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline: European Commission Article 101 TFEU probe into a price-fixing cartel in the car battery recycling sector ( AT.40018). Latest development On 8 February 2017, the Commission adopted its infringement decision. Financial penalties on the four undertakings were as follows: Johnson Controls – €0 after immunity was granted (avoiding a €38,481,300 fine) Eco- Bat Technologies – €32,712,000, reflecting a 50% reduction under the Leniency Notice for co-operating with the Commission’s investigation Recylex – €26,739,000, reflecting a 30% reduction under the Leniency Notice for co-operating with the...
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
