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 ( NOTE—appeal lodged before the CAT in relation to the CMA’s decision to fine Electro Rent for failure to comply with an interim order issued by the CMA) ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the penalty notice of 12 June 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline UK merger probe into Electro Rent Corporation’s acquisition of Test Equipment Asset Management and Microlease Inc. The deal features horizontal overlaps across markets for the hire of test and measurement equipment. Latest developments On 15 February 2019, the Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA) released a penalty notice to Electro Rent Corporation ( Electro Rent), dated 12 February 2019, for a second breach of an interim order in the merger investigation. The breach arose from appointing Electro Rent’s Chief Financial Officer as a director of several target...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the date of the judgment of 3 July 2014; it is no longer updated or maintained. For more detail and context, see: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Electrabel SA lodged an appeal against the General Court’s judgment, which upheld the Commission’s decision of 10 June 2009, as adopted by the Commission, imposing a fine on Electrabel for implementing a Community‑dimension ‘concentration’ contrary to the EU Merger Regulation’s stand‑still obligation. The breach stemmed from acquiring de facto sole control of Compagnie Nationale du Rhône in December 2003 without first securing Commission clearance. This case also highlights the notification and stand‑still duties under the EU Merger Regulation, and the potentially significant financial sanctions that can follow non‑compliance with those mandatory...
This table sets out every concluded probe by Egypt’s competition watchdog (the Egyptian Competition Authority—the ECA) into suspected cartels, anti-competitive arrangements and misuse of dominance from 2018 onwards. Note—only matters placed in the public domain appear here. 2023 Investigations under Articles 6–7 of Law No 3 of 2005 School textbooks — companies: unknown; issues: restrictive agreements and cartel; development: ECA issued an infringement decision—25/02/2023. Investigations under Article 8 of Law No 3 of 2005 No Article 8 decisions were issued by the ECA in 2023. 2022 Investigations under Articles 6–7 of Law No 3 of 2005 School uniforms — 1 undertaking (listed here); issue: restrictive agreements—exclusivity; development: ECA issued an infringement decision—20/01/2022. Public procurement — 3 undertakings (listed here); issue: restrictive agreements—bid rigging; development: ECA issued an infringement...
This table outlines every concluded inquiry by the European Free Trade Association ( EFTA) into suspected cartels, anti‑competitive arrangements, and misuse of dominance ( Articles 101/102 TFEU) from 2016 onwards. Note—only those investigations that have been disclosed publicly appear in this table. 2022 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU EFTA issued no decisions under Article 101 in the year 2022. Investigations under Article 102 TFEU EFTA issued no decisions under Article 102 TFEU in the year 2022. 2021 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU EFTA issued no decisions under Article 101 in the year 2021. Investigations under Article 102 TFEU EFTA made no decisions under Article 102 at all......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived hub records the position as at the judgment of 19 September 2013; it is no longer being updated. See also: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline EFIM lodged an appeal against the General Court’s judgment that affirmed the Commission decision of 20 May 2009 dismissing EFIM’s complaint regarding purported infringements of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by Hewlett- Packard, Lexmark, Canon and Epson in the ink cartridges market. The matter examines the Commission’s procedure and scope of discretion in handling competition law complaints, and also reaffirms the substantive evaluation of ‘aftermarkets’ when considering Article 102 TFEU. Parties Appellant: European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers ( EFIM) Other Parties: European Commission Lexmark International Technology SA ( Lexmark) Background On 30 March 2000, Pelikan AG ( Pelikan), an ink and ink cartridge manufacturer, lodged a complaint with the Commission alleging an abuse of a...
The European Free Trade Association ( EFTA) Founded in 1960 by Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Switzerland, Sweden, the UK and Austria, the European Free Trade Association ( EFTA) is a trading organisation. It was set up as an intergovernmental body to advance free trade and economic integration among its Convention States, thereby offering an alternative to the newly formed European Economic Community ( EEC), which later evolved into the European Community ( EC) and ultimately the European Union ( EU). Finland acceded in 1961, Iceland in 1970, and Liechtenstein in 1991 respectively. By then, Denmark, Portugal and the UK had departed EFTA to enter the EEC. In 1989, EC and EFTA Member States together agreed to negotiate a free trade pact creating ‘a single market’ spanning the EC (now EU) and the EFTA States. The European Economic Area ( EEA) Agreement formally came into effect on 1...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 5 February 2018; it is no longer maintained. See the timeline, commentary, and related/relevant cases for further details. Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court against the European Commission’s decision refusing Edeka‑ Handelsgesellschaft Hessenring’s request for a non‑confidential version of the Commission decision and for access to documents concerning the ERID cartel investigation. Outcome On 5 February 2018, the General Court delivered its judgment, dismissing the action in full. The Court found that Edeka had not shown that the table of contents of the Commission’s file was outside a general presumption of confidentiality, nor that an overriding public interest justified disclosure. Parties Applicant: Edeka‑ Handelsgesellschaft Hessenring ( Edeka), a member of the Edeka Cooperative, a German retailer and wholesaler. Defendant: European...
NOTE—to check whether notification thresholds in Ecuador and worldwide are met, see: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Ecuadorian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Ecuador? During 2023 and 2024, Ecuador’s merger control framework saw notable adjustments. The Superintendency of Economic Competition ( Superintendencia de Competencia Económica or SCE) amended the Guideline for Information Management at the end of 2023 and again in September 2024. These reforms removed the confidentiality restriction that had prevented access to files until a decision was issued. Accordingly, documentation tied to concentration notifications is now open to the public. This shift enables third parties to submit remarks or raise concerns about the transaction under examination. For example, in the deal between Procesadora Nacional de Alimentos Pronaca C. A. and...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment dated 21 March 2019; it is no longer maintained. For more information, see the timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline Eco- Bat Technologies Ltd appealed to the Court of Justice against the General Court’s ruling that Eco- Bat Technologies’ action challenging the Commission’s decision, as corrected, in Case AT. 40018 on a car battery recycling cartel, had not been filed within the time limit. Outcome On 21 March 2019, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment dismissing the appeal, and affirmed the General Court’s order that Eco- Bat Technologies Limited had lodged its appeal out of time. The Court of Justice held that a modification to the original Commission decision did not ‘reset’ the deadline for bringing a challenge—which Eco Bat Technologies Ltd had...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeals lodged before the General Court in Case T- 53/21, T- 55/21, T- 56/21, T- 58/21, T- 59/21, T- 60/21, T- 61/21, T- 62/21, T- 63/21, T- 64/21 and T- 65/21 ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 17 September 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts European Commission merger probe into E. ON’s planned acquisition of RWE’s subsidiary Innogy ( Case M.8870). The Commission raised competition concerns in retail electricity and gas in the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary and Slovakia. Latest developments On 17 September 2019, the Commission cleared the transaction subject to commitments, including structural remedies. Parties E. ON SE ( E- ON), based in Germany, is an energy group active along the energy chain. After the RWE asset swap, E. ON will focus on...
ARCHIVED – this archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 22 May 2020; it is no longer maintained. See the timeline and related cases for further details. Case facts Outline Appeal from the CAT’s judgment of 14 February 2019, which refused Mastercard’s application asserting and maintaining that Dixon’s and Europcar’s damages claims for the period 22 May 1992 to 20 June 2004 inclusive were time-barred under and pursuant to Rule 31(4) of the CAT Rules 2003 and section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980. Latest developments On 22 May 2020, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment. It concluded and determined that the CAT erred in: (i) its construction of Rule 31(4) of the CAT’s 2003 Rules, such that claims concerning transactions before 20 June 1997 were prima facie time-barred under Rule 31(4); and (ii) its treatment and...
This collates and summarises every concluded UK enforcement action connected to the UK Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 ( DMCCA 2024). For further details of all live UK enforcement actions under the DMCCA 2024, see further: UK Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act enforcement actions—ongoing cases tracker For a chronology of all legislative and policy developments concerning the UK’s reform of its approach to......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 9 March 2015; it is no longer updated. See further: timeline, commentary and related/similar cases Case facts Appeal to the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 1 February 2012 that blocked the merger between Deutsche Börse and NYSE Euronext ( Case COMP/ M.6166— Deutsche Börse/ NYSE Euronext). On 9 March 2015, the General Court dismissed the action in full. Outline The matter is notable as it involves a prohibition decision by the Commission—an infrequent outcome—and is particularly striking given the transaction was cleared by the US authorities. It further illustrates the difficulty of attempting to rescue otherwise problematic mergers through efficiency arguments. Parties Applicant: Deutsche Börse AG ( Deutsche Börse) Defendant: European Commission Deutsche Börse is a German-based group active across cash and derivatives markets. It runs the Frankfurt Stock Exchange and holds a...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 6 September 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVE—06/09/2013 Outline Appeals to the General Court were lodged by Deutsche Bahn and various group companies contesting the Commission’s decision of 14 March 2011, which authorised surprise inspections at Deutsche Bahn sites on 29 March 2011, together with later decisions permitting further searches. On 6 September 2013, the General Court rejected the actions in full. The dispute centres on the breadth of the Commission’s investigatory powers when ordering and conducting unannounced inspections, and on the procedural protections afforded to undertakings under scrutiny. Parties Applicants: Deutsche Bahn AG ( Deutsche Bahn) and several subsidiaries Defendant: European Commission Deutsche Bahn is a global undertaking based in Germany, operating in domestic and...
Denon & Marantz (vertical restraints) ( AT.40469) [ Archived] CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this hub captures the position as at the 24 July 2018 decision date and is no longer updated. See also the timeline, commentary and linked cases. Case facts Outline of the European Commission’s Article 101 TFEU probe into vertical limits on online sales of consumer electronics attributed to Denon & Marantz ( Case AT.40469). Latest developments On 24 July 2018, the Commission adopted an infringement decision against Denon & Marantz, levying a €7.719m fine (following an ‘informal settlement’) for enforcing fixed or minimum resale prices on online retailers, contrary to Article 101 TFEU. Parties Denon & Marantz is a Japan-based manufacturer of audio and visual consumer products. Background The inquiry started in February 2017, triggered by findings from the Commission’s e‑commerce sector...
1. What is the applicable legislation? The primary statute is the Act on Screening of Certain Foreign Direct Investments, etc. in Denmark ( Consolidated Act No. 1256 of 27 October 2023) (the Investment Screening Act), together with the related executive orders. The Investment Screening Act and these executive measures entered into force on 1 July 2021 and cover both investments and so‑called ‘special financial agreements’ concluded on or after 1 September 2021. In addition, the Act on War Material ( Consolidated Act No. 1004 of 22 October 2012) sets out a screening regime that applies solely to undertakings that produce specified war material. Where an investment falls within the Act on War Material, the Investment Screening Act does not apply. Moreover, several comparable Acts—outside the Danish FDI screening framework—also exist. These include: The Act on the Continental Shelf and Certain...
This list sets out every concluded probe run by Denmark’s competition watchdog (the Danish Competition and Consumer Authority— DCCA) into suspected cartels, anti‑competitive deals and misuse of dominance ( Articles 101/102 TFEU and domestic counterparts) from 2018 onwards. Note—only matters that have entered the public domain appear here. 2026 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/sections 6–8 of the Danish Competition Act Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Train spare parts • Diesel Motor Nordic • Deutz AG Restrictive agreement—price fixing • Infringement decision announced—05/05/2026; fines totalling DKK 1m imposed Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/section 11 of the Danish Competition Act The DCCA has not yet adopted any decisions under Article 102/section 11 in 2026. 2025 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/sections 6–8 of the Danish Competition Act Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Advertising • AFA Decaux A/ S • Clear Channel Denmark...
1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the DRC merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in the DRC? On 8 July 2019, the DRC enacted the Law on Pricing, Freedom and Competition (the Competition Act), creating a national merger control framework. As the prerogatives of the newly formed DRC Competition Commission have not yet been brought into force, the prior Competition Commission, instituted by the 1987 Order, is presently responsible for exercising powers under the Competition Act. The Minister of the Economy retains the ultimate say on whether a deal is cleared. No further changes are anticipated over the next year and, to our knowledge, there are no pressing merger control topics in the DRC at present... 2. Under DRC merger control law, is the control test the same as the EU...
NOTE—to check whether notification thresholds in Denmark and worldwide are met, please refer to: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Danish merger control regime and are there any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other 'hot' merger control issues in Denmark? From 1 July 2024, amendments to the Danish Competition Act (the Act) took effect, introducing a ‘call‑in’ power akin to the EU’s Article 22 referral mechanism in the Regulation on the control of concentrations between undertakings ( EUMR). Using this tool, the Danish Competition and Consumer Authority ( DCCA) can require a merger filing where the parties’ combined annual Danish turnover exceeds DKK 50m (about €6.7m) and the DCCA considers there is a risk the deal may significantly impede effective competition. The power spans all industries, though the preparatory works signal particular attention to...
What is the applicable legislation? Foreign direct investment in the Czech Republic falls under Act No. 34/2021 Coll., as amended, dated 19 January 2021, on the Screening of Foreign Investments and Amendments to Related Laws (the Foreign Investments Screening Act). The Act has applied since 1 May 2021. Which government or other body (or bodies) reviews foreign investments? The Ministry of Industry and Trade ( MIT) leads the screening of foreign investments in the Czech Republic. During reviews it consults other public authorities, such as relevant ministries, the Czech intelligence services, and the National Cyber and Information Security Agency, which provide their observations. Where required, the MIT escalates matters to the Czech government for a final decision. What is the scope of the foreign investment regime? Does it only apply to specific sectors or types of investors (e.g. foreign or non- EU / non- WTO)? Are there...
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
