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
This overview records merger matters pulled in for examination by national competition bodies across EU/ EEA Member States, even where statutory filing thresholds were not met. It omits deals voluntarily notified by the undertakings. Besides the territories listed below, the following EU/ EEA Member States may scrutinise transactions that sit beneath formal notification triggers: Cyprus, Denmark, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia, and Sweden. Note—only public cases from 2014 onwards are captured here. 2026 Jurisdiction: Ireland; parties: Uniphar/ Touch Store; market: national wholesale pharmaceutical supply, pharmacy software and/or retail pharmacy sectors; competition issues: vertical input-foreclosure risks with conglomerate elements; status: called in—20/03/2026 2025 Jurisdiction: Denmark; parties: One Med/ Kirstine Hardam; market: national ostomy appliances (stoma aids) and related patient care services; competition issues: horizontal unilateral effects and/or the creation or strengthening of a dominant position; status: final...
Case C-449/21 Towercast This table sets out concentrations within the EU that were examined by national competition authorities following the Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C-449/21 Towercast, even though they did not satisfy the formal thresholds for compulsory notification. In Case C-449/21 Towercast, the Court of Justice confirmed that Article 21(1) EUMR does not prevent a national competition authority from assessing a concentration under Article 102 TFEU by reference to its impact on competition in a national market, where that concentration does not have......
On 26 March 2021, the Commission issued a guidance paper outlining a revised stance on deploying Article 22 EUMR ( Article 22 Guidance). In essence, this Guidance urged national competition authorities to ask the Commission to review transactions that fall below domestic merger control thresholds and would, as a result, avoid scrutiny within the European Union. For more details, consult: EU and Member State merger referrals referenced in guidance herein......
For more, see the timeline. ARCHIVED – this archived case hub sets out the position as at the date the commitments were accepted on 17 January 2024; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU investigation into Renfe’s refusal to provide complete content and real‑time data to competing ticketing platforms active in the Spanish online passenger rail ticket distribution market. Latest development On 17 January 2024, the Commission accepted commitments from Aspen (see details below), and accordingly closed its investigation. Parties Renfe: Renfe is Spain’s state‑owned incumbent rail operator. Renfe sells tickets offline and online either (i) directly via its websites and apps (i.e. Renfe and Cercanías) and mobility platform (i.e. dōcō); or (ii) indirectly through third‑party ticketing platforms. Renfe competes with third‑party ticketing platforms, which are businesses offering online ticketing services to customers through apps or websites (i.e. online travel...
CASE HUB ( Note—appeal lodged by Google at the General Court in Case T-612/17) ARCHIVED – this case hub records the position as at the decision of 27 June 2017; it is no longer maintained. For further details, see the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission investigation under Article 102 TFEU into Google’s conduct concerning online shopping search (case number AT.39740). Latest developments On 27 June 2017, the Commission issued an infringement decision concluding that Google abused its dominant position in online search by conferring an unlawful advantage on its own comparison shopping service (now known as ‘ Google Shopping’). The Commission determined that Google’s practices hindered rival comparison shopping services, including some operating when Google entered the market, from competing effectively and from innovating. The Commission imposed a fine of €2,424,495,000 on Google (the second largest antitrust fine imposed by the Commission on an...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub captures the position as at the decision of 6 March 2020; it is no longer updated. See further, timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU probe into Transgaz regarding constraints on the export of natural gas from Romania ( Case AT.40335). Latest development On 6 March 2020, the Commission accepted Transgaz’s commitments under Article 9. These commitments, applicable until 31 December 2026, are intended to guarantee market actors access to substantial export capacity volumes through interconnection points linking Romania with neighbouring Member States. Parties Societatea Națională de Transport Gaze Naturale Transgaz S. A. ( Transgaz) is the sole manager and operator of Romania’s natural gas transmission network, covering every interconnector with adjacent...
CASE HUB (appeal lodged at General Court in Case T- 433/16) ARCHIVED – this archived case hub shows the position at the time of the final decision on 25 May 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into a cartel in the steel abrasives market ( Case AT.39792). The cartel concerned the coordination of prices. Latest development On 25 May 2016, the Commission adopted an infringement decision against Pometon and levied a fine of €6.197m. This followed the Commission’s infringement decision (with fines totalling €30.707m) imposed on Ervin, Winoa, Metalltechnik Schmidt and Eisenwerk Würth on 4 December 2014 after a settlement. The investigation into Pometon proceeded under the ordinary cartel procedure (ie non-settlement). Parties Ervin (based in the US and UK) Winoa (located in France). Metalltechnik Schmidt (located in Germany). ...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position at the date the commitments were accepted on 29 April 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related cases Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU inquiry into Mastercard (interchange fees), examining: restrictions on cross‑border acquiring, preventing retailers in a high‑interchange fee country from benefiting from lower fees offered by acquirers in other countries inter‑regional interchange fees where a non‑ EEA cardholder purchases goods or services within the EEA (case AT.40049) Latest developments On 29 April 2019, the Commission announced it had accepted commitments proposed by Mastercard regarding inter‑regional interchange fees. These undertakings will, on average, reduce inter‑regional exchange fees by about 40%. Parties Mastercard, the international payment organisation that manages and coordinates the Mastercard and Maestro card payment systems, including, among other functions, setting scheme rules and providing...
CASE HUB See more, timeline Case facts Overview Commission investigation under Article 101 TFEU concerning Cermaq, Grieg Seafood, Bremnes, Lerøy, Mowi and Sal Mar ( AT.40606). Latest update: On 25 January 2024, the Commission sent a statement of objections to Cermaq, Grieg Seafood, Bremnes, Lerøy, Mowi and Sal Mar ( AT.40606)......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position as at the decision date of 12 May 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases Case facts Outline European Commission probe under Article 101 TFEU into a cooperative joint venture involving Air France- KLM, Delta Air Lines and Alitalia (case AT.39964). On 12/05/2015 the Commission accepted and rendered binding the commitments offered by the parties. Parties Air France- KLM Delta Air Lines Alitalia Market(s) Scheduled passenger flights. The relevant product market is scheduled air passenger transport, with effects assessed separately for time-sensitive and non time-sensitive passengers. Geographic markets follow point of origin to point of destination ( O& D) city pairs—each O& D pair is a distinct market. Multiple airports may fall within an origin or destination where travellers regard them as...
From a competition law perspective, transaction agreements (for example, a sale and purchase agreement) usually contain three main categories of provisions: merger control conditions to closing competition warranties non-compete covenants For this Practice Note, the parties are called the 'seller' and the 'buyer' (though comparable considerations commonly apply to joint venture participants). For sample clauses suitable for sale and purchase agreements, see Standard competition law clauses for sale and purchase agreements. Note—where an offer is made for a target (or potential target) with securities admitted to trading on a UK regulated market or multilateral trading facility, or on any stock exchange in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, the Takeover Code may apply (see Merger control and the Takeover Code). For further guidance on competition law points to address during a corporate transaction, see the checklist. Merger control conditions to closing It is typical for the parties to agree that...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – Appeals before the General Court in the following matters are captured here; this hub reflects the position as at the re-adopted decision of 17 March 2017 and is no longer maintained. T-67/11 ( Martinair) T-63/11 ( Air France) T-62/11 ( Air France- KLM) T-56/11 ( SAS Cargo) T-48/11 ( BA) T-46/11 ( Deutsche Lufthansa) T-43/11 ( Singapore Airlines) T-40/11 ( LAN Airlines) T-39/11 ( Cargolux) T-36/11 ( Japan Airlines) T-28/11 ( Koninklijke) T-9/1 ( Air Canada) Case facts Overview of the European Commission’s Article 101 TFEU case concerning a price-fixing cartel in worldwide air freight markets ( AT.39258). Latest development On 17 March 2017, the European Commission re-adopted its infringement decision against eleven airline groups, issuing total fines exceeding €776m......
ARCHIVED – This archived practice note sets out information on the EU Damages Directive and captures the position as at its commencement on 27 December 2014. It is not maintained or updated. After nearly a decade of debate, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers endorsed a new EU directive on private damages actions for breaches of competition law (the Directive). The Directive received formal adoption on 26 November 2014, following sign-off by the Parliament and Council, and appeared in the Official Journal on 5 December 2014; it took effect on 27 December 2014, with Member States afforded two years from that date to transpose its measures into domestic law. The Directive is intended to guarantee that anyone suffering loss caused by an infringement of competition law can effectively pursue full compensation. Its overarching purpose is to tackle obstacles to the effective enforcement of...
NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Case T-93/24 ARCHIVED — this case hub reflects the position as at the decision of 7 December 2023; it is no longer maintained. See the timeline and related cases for further details. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into a cartel influencing the wholesale price formation mechanism in the European ethanol market ( Case AT.40054). Latest development On 7 December 2023, the Commission adopted an infringement decision and imposed a fine on Lantmännen of approximately €47.7m. Lantmännen opted not to settle with the Commission. Parties Abengoa S. A. and its subsidiary Abengoa Bionenergía S. A (together, Abengoa): Abengoa, headquartered in Spain, is a multinational operating in green infrastructure, energy and water. It was previously among the EU’s largest ethanol producers. Lantmännen ek för and its subsidiary Lantmännen Agroetanol AB (together, Lantmännen): Lantmännen is a Swedish...
A discussion with Kaupo Lepasepp, partner, and Jürgen Adamson, associate, at the Tallinn office of regional law firm SORAINEN, exploring the main questions around foreign direct investment ( FDI) screening in Estonia. 1. What is the applicable legislation? On 25 January 2023, the Estonian Parliament passed the Foreign Investment Reliability Assessment Act, which took effect on 1 September 2023. The Act sets out the conditions and process for a foreign investment authorisation obligation, for evaluating the reliability of foreign investments, and for exercising state supervision over compliance with the relevant requirements. In addition, two implementing regulations linked to the Act were adopted and are outlined below: Procedure for submitting an application for a foreign investment and Rules of Procedure of the Foreign Investment Commission (both available only in Estonian). Furthermore, some limited categories of investments may fall under sector-specific rules, rendering them de facto relevant to foreign direct...
This overview outlines all completed investigations by Estonia’s competition authority (the Konkurentsiamet) into suspected cartels, anti-competitive arrangements and abuses of dominant positions ( Articles 101/102 TFEU and national equivalents) since 2017. Note—only matters that have been made public appear here. 2024 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter 2 of the Competition Act Case: Grain drying Companies under investigation: six undertakings Issues: restrictive agreement and cartel Developments: Circuit Court delivered judgment on 17/01/2024; fines totalling €330,000 imposed Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/ Chapter 4 of the Competition Act In 2024, the Konkurentsiamet issued no decisions under Article 102/ Chapter 4. 2023 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter 2 of the Competition Act No decisions under Article 101/ Chapter 2 were issued by the Konkurentsiamet in 2023. Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/ Chapter 4 of ......
A discussion with Kaupo Lepasepp, partner, and Piibe Lehtsaar, counsel at the Tallinn office of regional law firm Sorainen, on key issues in Estonian merger control. NOTE – for guidance on whether notification thresholds in Estonia and worldwide are triggered, consult Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Estonian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Estonia? The Competition Authority has, from time to time, signalled an intention to pursue changes to the merger control rules so that it could compel notification of a transaction even where the relevant thresholds are not met. Its 2024 annual report, published in May 2025, once more cited the November 2022 proposal to the Ministry of Justice, requesting several merger control‑related revisions to the Estonian Competition Act, such as: ...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 13 November 2012; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Summary of a UK merger review into the completed purchase by Epwin Holdings Limited of Latium Building Products Holdings Limited, CET Glass Processors Holdings Limited and Building Plastics Holdings Limited. Latest developments The CC determined that the deal posed no competition concerns and did not bring about a significant lessening of competition. Consequently, the CC granted unconditional clearance. Parties Acquirer — Epwin Holdings Limited ( Epwin). Targets — Latium Building Products Holdings Limited ( Latium); CET Glass Processors Holdings Limited ( CET); Building Plastics Holdings Limited ( Building Plastics). Epwin was among the earliest UK producers of PVC window frames. Beyond PVC manufacturing, Epwin also operates 27 stockists. Before the deal, Epwin was owned by Mr Jim Rawson. Before the deal,...
Section 188 of the Enterprise Act 2002 ( En A 2002) creates a criminal offence where an individual agrees with one or more others that two or more undertakings will participate in prohibited cartel arrangements. This spans price fixing, market sharing, restricting production or supply, and bid rigging. The offence bites on agreements both to create or implement such arrangements, and to cause them to be created or implemented. It is committed irrespective of whether the undertakings put the agreement into effect by the undertakings. There are a number of defences available. See further, The UK criminal cartel offence. Both the Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA) and the UK’s Serious Fraud Office ( SFO) have the power to investigate individuals suspected of involvement in the criminal cartel offence under En A 2002, s 188. Under En A 2002, s 190,...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED — reflects the position at 1 April 2025 final decision; not maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Article 101 TFEU investigation into a cartel involving 15 undertakings and one trade association on end-of-life vehicle recycling ( AT.40669). Latest development On 2 April 2025, the Commission issued its infringement decision after 15 car makers and one trade body settled and admitted the cartel. Total fines: €458m. Parties/fines: Stellantis — €74,934,000 (50% leniency) Mitsubishi — €4,150,000 (30% leniency) Ford — €41,462,000 (20% leniency) BMW — €24,587,000 Honda — €5,040,000 Hyundai/ Kia — €11,950,000 Jaguar Land Rover/ Tata — €1,637,000 Mazda — €5,006,000 ( Ford jointly and severally liable ( J& S) for €1,034,000) Renault/ Nissan — €81,461,000 (50% leniency) Opel — €24,530,000 (50% leniency; GM J& S €13,659,000) GM —...
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
