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 table outlines every concluded probe by the Czech Republic’s competition watchdog, the Office for the Protection of Competition ( OPC), into suspected cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominance ( Articles 101/102 TFEU and national analogues) since 2018. Note—only investigations disclosed publicly are listed. 2026 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/ Article 3 of the Act on the Protection of Competition Electronics – HP TRONIC Zlín, spol. s r.o.: Restrictive agreement— RPM. Infringement decision announced—07/05/2026; fines totalling CZK 38,971,000 imposed. Household appliances – Elberry s.r.o.: Restrictive agreement— RPM. Infringement decision issued—09/01/2026; fines totalling CZK 767,000 imposed. Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/ Article 11 of the Act on the Protection of Competition Online text advertising for property listings on dedicated real-estate portals – Seznam.cz: Concern that Seznam.cz abused a dominant position by charging higher unit prices to small-volume advertisers than to larger ones and by varying prices by region and...
Note—to check whether notification thresholds in Cyprus and across the globe are satisfied, see: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Cypriot merger control regime and are there any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Cyprus? Following the passage of ' The Control of Concentrations between Undertakings Law of 2014' (the Merger Control Law), no additional changes have arisen in the Cypriot merger control framework. The Merger Control Law aligns more closely with the EU Merger Regulation ( EUMR) and, in particular, introduced a revised definition of a concentration. Consequently, one criterion for determining if a concentration is notifiable is whether there are two or more active participating undertakings in Cyprus. The updated thresholds under the Merger Control Law require at least two of the undertakings involved in a...
1. What is the applicable legislation? The governing law is Law 194( I)/2025 on the Establishment of a Framework for the Screening of Foreign Direct Investments 2025 ( FDI Law 2025). It gives domestic effect to the obligations under Regulation ( EU) 2019/452 on foreign direct investment screening ( Regulation ( EU) 2019/452)... 2. Which government or other body (or bodies) reviews foreign investments? The Ministry of Finance acts as the competent authority to accept FDI notifications, carry out assessments and liaise with other departments or the EU. The review process is assisted by an inter‑ministerial Advisory Committee, with participation from the relevant ministries... 3. What is the scope of the foreign investment regime in Cyprus? Does it only apply to specific sectors or types of investors (eg foreign or non- EU / non- WTO)? Are there specific rules for certain types of investors (eg...
This table provides an overview of all completed probes by Cyprus’s competition watchdog, the Commission for the Protection of Competition ( CPC), into suspected cartels, anti-competitive arrangements and abuses of dominance ( Articles 101/102 TFEU and national counterparts) since 2018. Only investigations placed in the public domain are listed here. 2024 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/ Article 3 of the Competition Protection Laws of 2008 and 2014 Medical services — Pancypriot Medical Association: restrictive agreements; infringement decision issued on 19/09/2024; fines totalling €2,125. Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/ Article 6 of the Competition Protection Laws of 2008 and 2014 The CPC did not publish any decisions under Article 102/ Article 6 in 2024. 2023 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/ Article 3 of the Competition Protection Laws of 2008 and 2014 No decisions were adopted by the CPC under Article 101/ Article 3 in...
This table outlines every concluded probe by Curaçao’s competition regulator (the Fair Trade Authority— FTAC) into suspected cartels, restrictive agreements and misuse of dominant positions since 2019. Note—only enquiries that have been disclosed to the public appear in this table. 2020 Investigations under Article 3.1 of the National Ordinance on Competition Case title, companies probed and the sector Issues Developments The FTAC issued no decisions under Article 3.1 in 2020 investigations at all......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment of 9 September 2015 and is no longer updated. For further details, see: timeline, commentary and related/similar cases. Note — LG, Samsung, Philips and Panasonic lodged appeals before the Court of Justice in the following matters: C-588/15 C-615/15 C-622/15 C-608/15 Case facts Outline Proceedings before the General Court sought annulment or, in the alternative, a significant cut to the fines arising from the Commission’s decision of 5 December 2012. That decision found breaches of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, imposing aggregate penalties of €1.475bn on seven companies involved in the supply of cathode ray tubes, for alleged participation in cartels in the sector (the ‘ TV and computer monitor tubes’ cartels). On 9 September 2015, the General Court reduced the fines for...
This overview presents every concluded inquiry by Croatia’s competition authority (the Croatian Competition Agency— AZTN) into suspected cartels, anti-competitive arrangements and abuses of dominance ( Articles 101/102 TFEU and national counterparts) since 2018. Note—only investigations placed in the public domain are shown. 2024 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/ Article 8–9 of the Croatian Competition Act Telecommunications — 6 undertakings (listed here) Issues: Restrictive agreement Developments: Infringement decision announced 18/12/2024; fines totalling EUR 1.17m imposed Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/ Article 12–14 of the Croatian Competition Act The AZTN issued no decisions under Article 102 TFEU/ Article 12–14 in 2024. 2023 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/ Article 8–9 of the Croatian Competition Act The AZTN issued no decisions under Article 101 TFEU/ Article 8–9 in...
Cases C-90/15 P Hansen & Rosenthal and H& R Wax Company Vertrieb v Commission, C-94/15 P Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen v Commission and C-95/15 P H& R Chem Pharm v Commission ( Candle waxes cartel) [ Archived] CASE HUB (date of judgments—16/02/2017) See also: timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the decision of 16 February 2017; it is no longer maintained. Outline These appeals targeted General Court rulings that upheld the Commission decision of 1 October 2008, which found breaches of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and levied combined fines of €36m on the Hansen & Rosenthal/ Tudapetrol group for alleged involvement in an EU‑wide paraffin waxes cartel (the ‘ Candle waxes cartel’). On 16 February 2017, the Court of Justice rejected the appeals in...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 21 January 2020 and is no longer maintained. See the timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C-274/14 Banco de Santander — a national reference from Spain seeking guidance on whether rules allowing tax amortisation of financial goodwill accord with EU State aid rules. Latest developments On 21 January 2020, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment, finding the questions referred inadmissible on the ground that the TEAC was not ‘a court of tribunal’ for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU. Parties Banco de Santander ( Santander) Market Tax amortisation of financial goodwill. Background to reference The case primarily concerns the interpretation of Commission Decision 2011/5 EC of 28 October 2009, addressing the State aid element of a special tax regime enabling amortisation of financial goodwill arising from acquisitions of foreign...
CASE HUB—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 7 November 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further,timeline. Case facts Outline of Joined Cases C‑105/18 to C‑113/18, UNESA and Others v Administración General del Estado—several Spanish preliminary references sought guidance, among other matters, on whether Article 107(1) TFEU should be construed as meaning that the imposition of a hydraulic levy, like the measure at issue, to the disadvantage of hydroelectricity producers operating in river basins spanning more than one autonomous community, constitutes prohibited State aid. Latest developments On 7 November 2019, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment......
CASE HUB ( Sainsbury’s appeals before the Supreme Court: UKSC 2018/0156 and UKSC 2018/0154) ARCHIVED – this case hub records the position as at the judgment of 4 July 2018; it is no longer maintained. See also: timeline, commentary, and related cases Case facts Outline These appeals concern competition damages claims brought by retailers against Master Card and Visa regarding multilateral interchange fees ( MIF). The judgments under challenge are: Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Master Card Incorporated Asda Stores Limited v Master Card Incorporated and ors WM Morrison Supermarkets PLC v Master Card Incorporated and ors Argos Limited and ors v Master Card Incorporated Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Visa Services LLC and ors On 04/07/2018, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment, finding that MIFs infringed competition law. Matters concerning Article 101(3) TFEU and quantum were remitted to the CAT for...
ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 10 March 2020; it is no longer maintained. NOTE— The Supreme Court has granted permission to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment on costs. See the timeline, commentary and related cases for further details. Case facts Outline Appeal by the Competition and Markets Authority against the CAT’s ruling which quashed the CMA’s infringement decision of 12 February 2016 that fined Pfizer Inc and Flynn Pharma ( Holdings) Limited for charging unfair and excessive prices for phenytoin sodium capsules, contrary to Article 102 TFEU and Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998. Latest developments On 10 March 2020, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment, rejecting the CMA’s attempt to reinstate the fines. However, it concluded that the CAT made legal errors in its assessment of the CMA’s excessive pricing decision against Pfizer Inc and Flynn...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 7 April 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline An appeal by the OFT against the CAT’s decision to permit Somerfield and Gallaher to file a late appeal challenging the OFT’s tobacco cartel decision. The Court of Appeal delivered its ruling on 07/04/2014, upholding the OFT’s appeal... Parties Office of Fair Trading ( OFT) Somerfield Stores Limited and its parent company, The Co-operative Group Food Limited ( Somerfield was acquired by the Co-op during the OFT’s cartel investigation). Gallaher Group Limited and its subsidiary Gallaher Limited. Background The OFT issued its infringement decision in the Tobacco cartel on 15 April 2010. Somerfield and Gallaher had previously settled with the OFT, accepting liability in exchange for a reduced penalty (the...
Numerous competition authorities across the globe have adjusted their operations in light of the coronavirus ( COVID-19) pandemic. The outline below sets out the position on merger control processes in selected jurisdictions. Note—only jurisdictions confirmed to have revised procedures due to the coronavirus outbreak are included; where not indicated below, no procedural changes are known. For coronavirus ( COVID-19) developments concerning antitrust investigations, exceptions/exemptions and State aid reviews, see Coronavirus ( COVID-19)—global behavioural, exemptions and State aid case tracker... Jurisdiction Merger control regime status update Albania The Competition Authority deferred all meetings and hearings scheduled up to 31/03/2020 to April 2020. All investigations were paused until 31/03/2020. From mid- April, the Authority resumed issuing merger clearance decisions. Merger notifications can be lodged by email... Angola All filings must be submitted to the ARC by email; in-person contact is...
Information sharing is a common commercial practice that can enhance transparency around pricing and other commercially sensitive data and, in some cases, deliver efficiencies. Nonetheless, information exchange is increasingly pursued as an anti-competitive behaviour. Simultaneously, it remains one of the most difficult areas for the application of competition law. Illustrative conduct includes alleged price signalling, exchanging information and bid-rigging, unilateral disclosure of pricing intentions, indirect exchanges, sharing via an intermediary, information exchange in initial public offerings and share placings, or exchanges between merging parties. This Practice Note examines how the Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA), alongside sectoral regulators, applies the Chapter I prohibition of the Competition Act 1998 ( CA 1998) to agreements and concerted practices involving information exchange. For an EU competition law perspective, see Practice Note: Information exchange under EU competition law. Framework for the assessment of information...
This Practice Note sets out example enquiries to use in a corporate transaction due diligence exercise, aimed at uncovering and prompting disclosure of any competition law concerns affecting the business being purchased, and to seek the relevant documentation. In the questions below, the seller is defined as including its corporate group, and references to the business’s activities mean the activities of the target group and its corporate group, including all subsidiaries and business units that are being acquired. The wording may need to be tailored to reflect the actual entities being acquired and the nature of the corporate transaction. Sample questions Please supply particulars and copies of any agreement, conduct or arrangement of the [seller] regarding the [business] that breaches or is caught by Article 101 TFEU, Article 102 TFEU, the Competition Act 1998, the Enterprise Act 2002 or any other...
This tracker compiles and distils legislative, guidance and wider policy updates that shed light on how competition authorities around the world are approaching the question of how competition law can help deliver sustainability goals... 2026 Jurisdiction and body — Details — Developments Belgium ( Belgian Competition Authority) — The authority issues guidelines on sustainability agreements • Press release published—02/04/2026 France ( Autorité de la Concurrence— Ad C) — Ad C provides informal guidance on the Re Use initiative to roll out a standardised deposit-return system for food packaging in France • Informal guidance published—23/02/2026 UK ( CMA) — CMA offers informal guidance on the Landscape Enterprise Networks scheme • Informal guidance...
This table sets out every concluded inquiry by the Competition Commission of India ( CC) into alleged cartels, anti‑competitive agreements and abuses of dominance since 2018. Note—only investigations that are publicly available are listed. 2026 Investigations under section 3 of the Competition Act 2002 No section 3 determinations have been handed down by the CC in 2026. Investigations under section 4 of the Competition Act 2002 Desktop microprocessors — Allegation that Intel abused its dominant position via a restrictive, India‑specific warranty policy; infringement decision—12/02/2026; fines totalling INR 273.8 imposed 2025 Investigations under section 3 of the Competition Act 2002 Liquor trade associations — Maharashtra Wine Merchants Association; Pune District Wine Merchants Association; Association of Progressive Liquor Vendors; restrictive agreements; infringement decision—11/12/2025; no fines imposed Book trade — FPBAI; restrictive agreements and cartel; infringement...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Appeal ( C3/2020/0151) ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment of 12/11/2019 and is no longer maintained. For further information, see the timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Royal Mail has appealed Ofcom’s decision of 14 August 2018, which found that Royal Mail abused its dominant position by discriminating against its sole competitor, Whistl, in relation to the provision of bulk mail services in the UK, and also contests the level of the penalty imposed by Ofcom. Parties Royal Mail Group plc ( Royal Mail): Royal Mail operates parcel and letter delivery services across the UK and internationally, providing collection, sortation, transport and delivery. Its UK business is supported by its international parcels division, General Logistics Systems ( GLS). GLS runs a ground-based deferred parcel delivery service throughout Europe, covering 41 countries and seven states in the...
CASE HUB ( NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Appeal by Balmoral against the CAT’s judgment in Balmoral Tanks Limited & Anr v Competition and Markets Authority ( C3/2017/3539)) ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 6 October 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Appeal by Balmoral Tanks Limited and Balmoral Group Holdings Limited contesting the CMA’s decision concerning a cartel in the market for galvanised steel water storage tanks. Latest development On 6 October 2017, the CAT delivered its judgment and dismissed the appeal. Parties Balmoral Tanks Limited ( Balmoral) and its parent, Balmoral Group Holdings Limited Competition and Markets Authority The CMA’s investigation The CMA opened its investigation on 27 November 2012. It also pursued a criminal prosecution under the criminal cartel offence. Nigel Snee, the former Managing...
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
