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 hub is archived and shows the state of affairs as at the judgment dated 27 September 2021; it is not being updated. Note-an appeal has been filed to the Court of Appeal. See the timeline, commentary and connected cases. Case facts Summary of the CAT’s ruling concerning (i) a collective proceedings order sought by Mr Le Patourel, seeking permission to serve as class representative to pursue opt-in collective proceedings under section 47B of the Competition Act 1998; and (ii) BT’s cross-application to strike out the CPO bid. Latest development On 27 September 2021, the CAT delivered its judgment, deciding that (i) the Proposed Class Representative’s CPO application should be granted; and (ii) BT’s attempt to strike out and/or summarily dispose of the claim should not succeed. Parties Applicant: Mr Justin Le Patourel (the Proposed Class Representative; PCR): the PCR acts for roughly 2.3m BT...
CASE HUB NOTE-appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C- 701/21 and C- 739/21 ARCHIVED -this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 22 September 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Applications seeking annulment of the Commission decisions of 25 March 2015 and 14 August 2017, which concluded that an arbitral award establishing a supposedly preferential electricity tariff did not amount to the grant of State aid to the aluminium producer Mytilinaios ( SA.38101). Latest developments On 22 September 2021, the General Court delivered its ruling, by which it allowed the appeals. Parties Applicant: Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou A. E ( DEI) - an electricity generator and supplier established in Greece and controlled by the Greek State Defendant: European Commission (the...
ARCHIVED This case hub is archived and records the position as at the judgment dated 22 September 2021; it is no longer maintained. Note-an appeal was lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C‑746/21 P. See the timeline, commentary, and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court against the European Commission’s decision fining Altice Europe for putting into effect its purchase of PT Portugal before notifying the deal and obtaining clearance under the EU Merger Regulation. Latest development On 22 September 2021, the General Court delivered its judgment, dismissing the action in part. It held, amongst other things, that the Commission had not erred in finding breaches of both the notification and standstill obligations in the EU Merger Regulation. However, it reduced by 10% the fine for implementation prior to...
1. What is the applicable legislation? Foreign direct investment in New Zealand is regulated by the Overseas Investment Act 2005 (the Act), the Overseas Investment Regulations 2005 (the Regulations), and the Fisheries Act 1996. 2. Which government or other body (or bodies) reviews foreign investments? The Overseas Investment Office ( OIO) is the authority chiefly responsible for administering the Act. Certain categories of transactions may additionally be reviewed by the Minister of Finance, the Associate Minister of Finance, the Minister for Land Information and/or the Minister of Fisheries. 3. What is the scope of the foreign investment regime? 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 state-owned enterprises)? The Act applies to specified investments made by ‘overseas persons’ in: business assets exceeding defined monetary...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 27 January 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Case C-238/20 SIA ‘ Sātiņi- S’ v Dabas aizsardzības pārvalde-national references from Latvia asking, amongst other points, whether the €30,000 de minimis threshold in Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation No 717/2014 applies to compensation paid by a Member State for aquaculture losses in an area due to protected birds. Latest developments On 27 January 2022, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment holding that compensation granted by a Member State for aquaculture damage caused by birds protected under Directive 2009/147 is an advantage that may qualify as State aid if the remaining conditions are satisfied. It also confirmed that a Member State may apply the de minimis ceiling in Regulation 717/2014 to payments made for damage to...
CASE HUB NOTE-appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C- 536/19 P( I), C- 698/21 and C- 693/21 ARCHIVED This archive records the position as at the judgment of 8 September 2021 and is no longer being updated. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline An application for annulment was brought before the General Court against the European Commission’s decision of 27 November 2017 to open an in‑depth investigation into Spain’s environmental investment incentive for coal‑fired power stations ( SA.47912). Latest developments On 8 September 2021, the General Court handed down its judgment dismissing the appeal. It held that the Commission rightly considered the measure prima facie selective, since access was confined to plants primarily fuelled by coal and listed in the PNRE- GIC. Parties Applicant: Naturgy Energy Group SA ( NEG) Defendant: European Commission (the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 8 September 2021; it is no longer maintained. For more detail, see the timeline. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline An action for annulment before the General Court challenged the European Commission’s decision of 31 October 2108, which concluded that compensation paid by Lithuania to LITGAS for delivering a mandatory volume of liquefied natural gas to the LGN terminal facility in Klaipėda complied with the applicable State aid rules ( SA.44678). Latest developments On 8 September 2021, the General Court delivered its judgment, partially allowing the appeal. Specifically, it held that, when assessing the Applicants’ complaint, the Commission had ‘objective and consistent evidence of serious difficulties’ and therefore ought to have opened an in‑depth investigation. In addition, the Court determined that the examination of compensation for certain costs was...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 22 March 2022 and is no longer updated. For more, see the timeline. Case facts Outline: Cases C‑117/20, bpost v Autorité belge de la concurrence, and C‑151/20, Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde v Nordzucker AG and Others-national references from Belgium seeking elucidation of safeguards against double jeopardy (the ne bis in idem principle) under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Latest developments On 22 March 2022, the Court of Justice delivered its ruling, holding that the Charter does not bar a subsequent investigation by an authority of another Member State, provided there is co-ordination between authorities and clear rules that give companies predictability. The Court of Justice did not follow Advocate General Bobek’s Opinion of 2 September 2021, which suggested that the application of ne bis in idem should always rest on a ‘triple...
This overview sets out all completed investigations by Pakistan’s competition authority (the Competition Commission of Pakistan-the CCP) into suspected cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominant positions since 2016. Only inquiries that have been placed in the public domain are included... 2022 Investigations under section 4 of the Competition Act 2010 No decisions under s4 were issued in 2022... Investigations under section 3 of the Competition Act 2010 Electric poles – Peshawar Electric Supply Company ( PESCO) Issues: Allegations that PESCO exploited its dominance by imposing excessive charges Developments: Infringement decision dated 19/12/2022; fines totalling PKR 75m 2021 Investigations under section 4 of the Competition Act 2010 Pakistan Sugar Mills - 84 ......
This table sets out every concluded probe by Brazil’s competition authority, the Brazilian Administrative Council for Economic Defense ( CADE), into suspected cartels, anti-competitive arrangements and abuses of dominance since 2018. Only publicly disclosed matters are listed. 2025 Investigations under Article 36(1) of Law No. 12,529/2011 Electricity meters Companies: Elo Sistemas Eletrônicos; Fae Ferragens e Aparelhos Elétricos (now Fae Sistemas de Medição); Dowertech da Amazônia Indústria de Instrumentos Eletrônicos; plus 11 individuals Issues: Restrictive agreements and cartel Outcome: Infringement decision announced on 10/12/2025; fines totalling BRL 73m Healthcare sector Entities: Federação Nacional dos Estabelecimentos de Serviços de Saúde; Sindicato dos Hospitais, Casas de Saúde e...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED -this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 29 March 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline UK review of the proposed merger between Cargotec Corporation and Konecranes Plc. The companies have overlaps across markets for container and broader cargo handling equipment. Latest developments On 1 April 2022, the CMA ended its phase 2 investigation after the parties opted to abandon the proposed transaction. Parties Cargotec Corporation ( Cargotech): Cargotech, based in Finland, supplies equipment and services particularly for cargo handling in ports and terminals, as well as for ship and road transport, including container handling equipment and terminal automated solutions, delivered through its Kalmar business. Konecrances Plc ( Konecranes): Konecranes, also based in Finland, provides equipment and services notably for lifting and cargo handling in shipyards, ports and...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment dated 10 March 2022; it is no longer being updated. See also, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeals against the General Court’s judgments in Case T-683/15 and Joined Cases T-722/15, T-723/15 and T-724/15, which confirmed the annulment actions challenging the Commission’s decision concerning the funding of milk quality testing in Bavaria ( SA.35484). Latest development On 10 March 2022, the Court of Justice delivered its ruling, dismissing the appeals in full. Parties Appellants: European Commission (the Commission) Defendants: Freistaat Bayern Interessengemeinschaft privater Milchverarbeiter Bayerns e. V., Genossenschaftsverband Bayern e. V. and Verband der Bayerischen Privaten Milchwirtschaft e. V (together, the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 15 July 2021 and is no longer maintained. See the timeline for further detail. Case facts Outline Case C- 30/20, Volvo and Others - a national reference from Spain seeking clarification on the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation ( EU) No 1215/2012 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. Latest developments On 25 February 2021, the Court of Justice gave its judgment, finding, among other things, that where national law does not establish a specialised court, an undertaking that made purchases in several locations may bring proceedings before the court for the area in which its registered office is located. Parties Applicant: RH Defendants: AB Volvo; Volvo Group Trucks Central Europe Gmb H; Volvo Lastvagnar AB; and Volvo Group España SA...
CASE HUB NOTE-appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 591/21 P ARCHIVED -this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 14 July 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and relevant/related cases Case facts Outline Proceedings seeking to annul the Commission decision of 6 July 2020 that cleared a €150m subordinated loan, intended to indemnify Austrian Airlines for losses caused by the cancellation or rescheduling of its flights owing to the coronavirus ( COVID-19) outbreak ( SA.57539). Latest developments On 14 July 2021, the General Court delivered its judgment, rejecting the appeal in full. Parties Applicants Ryanair DAC ( Ryanair) Defendant European Commission (the Commission) Market Aviation. Decisions being appealed C(2020) 4684 final of 6 July 2020 concerning SA.57539. Background Measure at issue In June 2020, Austria informed the Commission of an individual aid measure benefiting Austrian Airlines AG ( AUA). The notified...
CASE HUB Archived This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 4 November 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline A UK remittal investigation into JD Sports Fashion plc’s completed acquisition of Footasylum plc. The deal involves horizontal overlaps in the retail markets for sports fashion footwear and clothing. Latest developments On 14 February 2022, the CMA announced its decision to levy fines totalling almost £4.7m on JD Sports Fashion plc and Footasylum plc for breaching an interim order and an information request issued under section 109 of the Enterprise Act 2002. The order barred JD Sports and Footasylum from sharing commercially sensitive information without prior consent and required the companies to alert the CMA immediately to any possibility that such information had been exchanged. The CMA found that, during two meetings in July and August 2021, the CEOs of JD...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment of 14 July 2021; it is no longer maintained. See the timeline for further detail. Case facts Outline An action was brought to annul the Commission’s decision of 10 January 2019 to open an in‑depth investigation into tax rulings issued by the Netherlands tax administration to Nike and Converse, with a view to assessing potential unlawful State aid ( SA.51284). Latest developments On 14 July 2021, the General Court delivered its judgment dismissing the action in full. It found, among other matters, that the Commission had adhered to procedural requirements and had neither failed in its duty to state reasons nor committed any manifest error of assessment. Parties Applicants: Nike European Operations Netherlands Converse Netherlands BV (together, the...
CASE HUB NOTE-appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 578/21 P ARCHIVED -this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 7 July 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline A challenge to the Commission’s decision of 9 July 2019 concerning alleged unlawful State aid granted to the fossil fuel sector via reduced property taxation ( SA.44671). Latest developments On 7 July 2021, the General Court handed down its judgment, rejecting the action. It concluded the applicants had not established doubts sufficient to warrant opening the formal investigation procedure. Parties Applicants: Irish Wind Farmers’ Association ( IWFA) Carrons Windfarm Ltd ( Carrons Windfarm) Foyle Windfarm Ltd ( Foyle Windfarm) Greenoge Windfarm Ltd ( Greenoge Windfarm) (together, the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the decision date of 24 February 2022; it is no longer maintained. See the timeline and commentary for more detail. Case facts Outline of the European Commission’s merger investigation into the proposed combination of Cargotec Corporation and Konecranes Plc ( M.10078). The deal entails horizontal overlaps in the markets for container and cargo handling equipment. Latest developments On 24 February 2022, the Commission approved the merger subject to commitments. It was concerned that the transaction would significantly reduce competition and was likely to result in higher prices in the EEA for several categories of container and cargo handling equipment (rubber-tyred gantry cranes, straddle/shuttle carriers and mobile equipment). In each of these segments, the parties hold very high market shares and face only limited competitive pressure. The Commission also found that, owing to the vertical...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub represents the position as at the judgment of 20 January 2022; it is no longer updated. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Proceedings were instituted by the Commission against Greece for failing to comply with the Court of Justice’s 2017 ruling in Case C-481/16, which upheld a Commission decision concluding that certain financial support granted by Greece to Larco General Mining & Metallurgical Company S. A ( Larco) constituted unlawful State aid ( Case SA.34572). Latest developments On 20 January 2022, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment holding that (1) Greece did not fulfil its obligations to give effect to the 2017 judgment and (2) that this non-compliance persisted up to the Court of Justice’s assessment of the facts. Parties Appellant: European Commission (the Commission) Respondent:...
ARCHIVED - this archived case hub records the position as at the judgment of 25 January 2022; it is no longer updated CASE HUB For details, see the timeline. Case C‑638/19 Commission v European Food and Others-an appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T‑624/15, which had granted annulment of Commission decision ( SA.38517) concerning aid paid to Viorel and Ioan Micula and companies they own in the form of an arbitration award. Latest development On 25 January 2022, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment. It allowed the appeal, set aside the General Court’s judgment and sent the case back to the General Court. The Court of Justice held, among other matters, that the General Court erred in law by finding that the Commission lacked competence to assess, under state aid law, the compensation Romania paid to Swedish investors in...
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
