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 ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 11/02/2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary Case facts Outline An appeal by Electro Rent Corporation challenging the Competition and Markets Authority’s decision to levy a penalty for breaching a hold separate obligation, which in this matter was set out in an interim order. Parties Electro Rent Corporation ( Electro Rent). Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA). Background On 31 January 2017, Electro Rent acquired all issued share capital in Microlease Inc. Both companies supply test and measurement equipment to sectors including telecommunications, aerospace and defence, and IT. The merger was not notified to the CMA. As the UK merger control system is voluntary, the parties were under no duty to notify, but accepted the risk that the CMA might open its own inquiry. On 1 February 2017, the CMA...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment dated 7 September 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline An application sought to strike out or summarily dismiss a standalone abuse of dominance claim issued by Forrest Fresh Foods Limited against Coca- Cola European Partners Great Britain Limited. Latest development On 7 September 2021, the CAT delivered its judgment, holding that it was not for the Tribunal to determine what the case might be and that, on the materials available, there was no reasonable basis for the claim. The CAT therefore ordered the claim to be struck out. It also observed that, had the claim not been struck out, it would have been minded to grant summary judgment in favour of Coca- Cola given the deficiencies identified. The CAT further concluded that the application did not satisfy the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 2 October 2013; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeal brought by BMI Healthcare, HCA International and Spire Healthcare against a Competition Commission ( CC) ruling that permitted access to a disclosure room while prohibiting reliance on documents seen there as evidence within the private healthcare market investigation. Parties BMI Healthcare ( BMI) HCA International ( HCA) Spire Healthcare ( Spire) These are the three largest private hospital operators in the UK and the key parties to the private healthcare market investigation. Background This is the first challenge following the CC’s provisional findings in the private healthcare market investigation. Both appeals concern the CC’s process for making collected material available to participants in the inquiry. The stakes are significant, as the CC has...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the CAT in 1380/1/12/21 ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 4 November 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary, and related cases. Case facts Outline CMA inquiry under Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I concerning Comparethe Market, regarding purported deployment of retail-wide most favoured nation ( MFN) terms within agreements with home insurance suppliers. Latest developments On 19 November 2020, the CMA issued an infringement decision, concluding that from December 2015 to December 2017 BGL ( Holdings) Limited, BGL Group Limited, BISL Limited ( BISL), and Compare The Market Limited (collectively, BGL) contravened the Chapter I prohibition and Article 101 TFEU by requiring broad MFN clauses from home insurance providers trading via its platform. The CMA levied a financial penalty of £17,910,062. Those MFN terms were imposed...
This table outlines all concluded investigations by the Colombian competition authority (the Superintendence of Industry and Commerce— SIC) into suspected cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominance since 2018. Note—only cases that have been made public appear here. 2022 Investigations under Article 1 of Law 155 of 1959 Logistics: Transportes Especiales FSG; HDL Logística; 9 individuals — restrictive agreements (bid-rigging). Infringement decision on 02/08/2022; fines totalling COP $3.8bn. Construction: 4 undertakings (listed here) — cartel. Infringement decision on 14/07/2022; fines totalling COP $101.5m. Liquor: 3 undertakings and 5 individuals (listed here) — cartel. Infringement decision on 07/07/2022; fines totalling COP $17.6bn. Auction services: 5 undertakings and 5 individuals (listed here) — restrictive agreements and cartel. Infringement decision on 23/06/2022; fines totalling COP $3.8bn. Logistics: Transportes Especiales FSG; HDL Logística; 9 individuals — restrictive agreements (bid-rigging). Infringement decision on 22/06/2022; fines totalling COP...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the decision date of 10 May 2016 and is no longer updated. For more detail, see the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline CMA Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I CA98 investigation into Ultra Finishing Limited concerning the suspected inclusion, within vertical agreements, of a minimum advertised price by Ultra Finishing (as manufacturer) for online sales of bathroom fittings, restricting retailers from pricing below that level (case CE/9857-14). Latest developments On 10 May 2016, the CMA issued an infringement decision and levied a £786,668 penalty on Ultra. The fine was reduced by 20% following Ultra’s decision to settle with the CMA. A further 5% discount was granted after Ultra agreed to implement a competition compliance programme across its business and staff. The programme will feature a clear board-level commitment to competition compliance (to be...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 3 May 2017 and is no longer maintained. See the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline CMA investigation under Article 101 TFEU and Chapter I CA98 into anti-competitive resale price maintenance affecting online sales within vertical agreements between a light fittings supplier and its resellers ( Case 50343). Latest developments On 3 May 2017, the CMA delivered its infringement decision against NLC, Poole, Saxby and Endon, imposing a £2.7m fine. Further particulars of the infringement and penalty were published by the CMA on 20 June 2017. 30% reduction for leniency Extra 20% for settling A further 10% for introducing a compliance programme 25% uplift after NLC disregarded an earlier CMA warning letter These adjustments altered the overall calculation of the fine......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 10 October 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline of a UK merger probe into the proposed combination of SSE Retail and Npower. The deal presents horizontal overlaps in the supply of energy to domestic retail customers. Latest developments On 10 October 2018, the CMA published its final report, approving the merger without remedies following a detailed phase 2 review. Parties SSE Retail is the household energy and services arm in Great Britain of SSE plc ( SSE). Npower Group plc ( Npower) supplies energy to British homes and businesses and is owned by innogy SE (innogy). Market(s) Provision of electricity and gas in Great Britain. Background Announced on 8 November 2017, SSE Retail and Npower intended to combine into a new entity, to be owned 65.6% by SSE’s...
Dye & Durham ( UK) Limited/ TM Group ( UK) Limited [ Archived] CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived hub sets out the position as at the decision of 3 August 2023 and is not being maintained. NOTE — an appeal was lodged before the CAT in Dye & Durham Limited and Dye & Durham ( UK) Limited v CMA (1586/4/12/23). See the timeline... Case facts Outline of the UK merger review into the completed purchase of TM Group ( UK) Limited by Dye & Durham ( UK) Limited. The firms overlap in providing property search reports across England and Wales, ordered by conveyancers and intermediaries as part of due diligence in property transactions... Latest developments On 3 August 2022, the CMA published its phase 2 final report, concluding the deal has resulted, or could be expected to result, in an SLC in the market for the supply of...
CASE HUB ( ARCHIVE 06/01/2016) ARCHIVED – this archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision of 6 January 2016; it is no longer updated. For further details, see the timeline and the related cases. Case facts Outline UK merger examination into the completed purchase by Linergy Limited of Ulster Farm By- Products Limited. The deal features a horizontal overlap in the market for processing animal by-products from non-fallen stock and fallen stock in Northern Ireland. Latest developments On 6 January 2016, the CMA gave unconditional clearance to the transaction, confirming in full its provisional conclusions. Parties Linergy Limited ( Linergy) is a renderer operating a category 1 processing facility at Dungannon, Co Tyrone, Northern Ireland. Two of Linergy’s shareholders are Linden Foods Limited and Dunbia Limited, both meat processors in Northern Ireland. Ulster Farm By- Products Limited ( UFBP) is a renderer with a category 3...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 15 August 2014 and is no longer maintained. For additional detail, see the timeline, commentary and related cases below. Case facts Outline UK merger review into the completed purchase by Alliance Medical Molecular Imaging Limited of the assets of IBA Molecular UK Limited. The deal creates a horizontal overlap in the supply of radioactive tracers used for cancer diagnosis. The transaction was cleared on the basis of the failing firm defence. Latest developments On 15 August 2014, the CMA issued its final decision, approving the merger without conditions. The CMA determined that IBA was a failing firm and, absent the merger, would have left the market and shut its facility—under that scenario, customers would have faced the same supplier options as they do...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub sets out the position at the date of the penalty notice, 24 November 2011; it is no longer maintained. See timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline of a UK merger review into the proposed purchase by Just Eat.co.uk Limited of Hungryhouse Holdings Limited, a deal with horizontal overlaps in markets for online takeaway ordering services. Latest developments On 24 November 2017, the CMA issued a penalty notice to Hungryhouse for non-compliance with a section 109 notice; the CMA accordingly levied a financial penalty of £20,000 on the company. More precisely, Hungryhouse, without any reasonable excuse, did not comply with a section 109 notice the CMA issued on 31 May 2017, by not supplying specified documents requested by the CMA within the deadlines required. The CMA concluded Hungryhouse lacked a reasonable excuse for this...
CASE HUB (not maintained since decision on 29/04/2015) ARCHIVED – this case hub records the position as at the decision of 29 April 2015 and is no longer maintained. See the timeline and commentary for more information. Case facts Outline UK merger review into Xchanging’s completed purchase of certain Agencyport Software Europe companies. The deal resulted in a horizontal overlap within the insurance software market. Latest developments On 29 April 2015, the CMA issued its final report and cleared the transaction following a phase 2 investigation. Parties Xchanging plc and its subsidiaries Xchanging Holdings Ltd and Xchanging, Inc ( Xchanging) supply specialist software to the insurance market. Xchanging is based in London. This forms part of a broader offer delivering business processing, technology and procurement services to large organisations in 48 countries. Agencyport Software Europe also supplies specialist software to the insurance market, notably to insurers, reinsurers and Lloyd’s of London...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 19 December 2019; it is not being maintained. See the timeline for further details. Case facts Summary of a UK merger review into LN- Gaiety Holdings’ proposed acquisition of MCD Productions. The deal presents vertical overlaps linked to the promotion of live music events in Northern Ireland. Latest developments On 19 December 2019, the CMA published its final report and approved the transaction without conditions, following a detailed phase 2 investigation. Parties LN- Gaiety Holdings Limited ( LN- Gaiety), a London-based joint venture between Live Nation Entertainment Inc ( Live Nation) and Gaiety Investments, operates music festivals. Live Nation represents artists, runs venues and delivers ticketing services through Ticketmaster, which it owns. MCD Productions Unlimited Company ( MCD), headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, stages music festivals and promotes live music events. MCD is...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged by Ecolab before the CAT (1334/4/12/19) See further: timeline. Case facts Outline UK merger inquiry into the completed purchase by Ecolab Inc. of The Holchem Group Limited. The deal features horizontal overlaps within markets for cleaning chemicals used by manufacturers of food, drink and dairy products. Latest developments On 7 October 2019, the CMA published its phase 2 final report, concluding that the merger has led, or could be expected to lead, to an SLC in the market for cleaning products and services. To address the SLC, the CMA determined that the most suitable remedy is full divestiture of The Holchem Group Limited (ie, unwinding the deal). Parties Ecolab Inc. ( Ecolab), headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, is a US-based global supplier of water, hygiene and energy technologies and services serving the food, energy, healthcare, industrial and hospitality sectors. The Holchem Group Limited (...
CASE HUB Archived —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 14 September 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline of a UK merger inquiry into the completed purchase by Hunter Douglas N. V. of convertible loan notes and specified rights in 247 Home Furnishings Ltd in 2013 (2013 Transaction), and the later completed purchase by Hunter Douglas N. V. of a controlling stake in 247 Home Furnishings Ltd in 2019 (2019 Transaction) (together, the Transactions). The Transactions give rise to horizontal overlaps in the supply of window furnishings, such as blinds, shutters and curtains. Latest developments On 14 September 2020, the CMA published its final report from its phase 2 review, concluding that the transaction has led to, or could be expected to lead to, an SLC in the online supply of...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This case hub reflects the position as at the decision date of 19 March 2025 and is not maintained. See the timeline and commentary for further detail. Case facts Outline UK merger investigation into the proposed acquisition by Boparan Private Office Limited (via 2 Agriculture Limited) of For Farmers UK Limited’s Burston and Radstock feed mills. The deal entails horizontal overlaps in the supply of meat poultry feed. Latest developments On 19 March 2025, the CMA released its final report, confirming the interim conclusion that the merger is not expected to lead to an SLC in the local supply of meat poultry feed, or in any other UK market. Parties Boparan ( Boparan): acting through 2Agriculture Ltd (2Agriculture), it operates in animal feed milling, specialising in the manufacture of conventional (i.e. non-organic) compound poultry feed. 2Agriculture belongs to a wider group active in food...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 14 December 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline CMA Chapter I CA98 inquiry into a suspected UK market‑sharing arrangement concerning cleanroom laundry services and related products ( Case 50283). Latest developments On 14 December 2017, the CMA issued an infringement decision, concluding the market‑sharing deal between Microclean and Berendsen Cleanroom breached Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998. The CMA imposed total penalties of £1.71m, allocated as follows: Microclean fined £510,118 Berendsen Cleanroom fined £1,197,956, with Berendsen plc (its parent for the latter part of the infringement period) jointly and severally liable for £1,028,671 Parties Micronclean Limited ( Microclean), previously known as Fenland Laundries Limited ( Fenland) until 1 July 2016. Microclean supplies cleanroom laundry services and is headquartered in Skegness,...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the final decision on 1 April 2025 and is no longer being maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Summary of a CMA Chapter I inquiry into restrictive arrangements struck by ten undertakings and two trade associations relating to end-of-life vehicle ( ELV) recycling and advertising. Latest development On 2 April 2025, the CMA issued its infringement decision after ten car makers and two trade bodies reached settlement with the CMA and accepted their role in the anti-competitive conduct. Aggregate fines of £77,688,917 were levied. Penalties for each party were: BMW—£11,060,925 (with a 20% settlement discount) Ford—£18,541,929 (with a 20% settlement discount) Jaguar Land Rover—£4,626,404 (with a 20% settlement discount) Peugeot Citroen (and owner Stellantis)—£5,189,948 (with a 45% leniency discount and a 20% settlement...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 22 September 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts UK merger review of the completed purchase by Cardtronics Holdings Limited of Direct Cash Payments Inc, involving horizontal overlaps in local markets for the placement of automatic teller machines ( ATMs). Latest developments On 22 September 2017, the CMA approved the deal without remedies, confirming its provisional conclusions. Parties Cardtronics Holdings Limited ( Cardtronics) is a subsidiary of Cardtronics plc, a US-based company. Cardtronics plc is the world’s largest ATM owner and operator, servicing approximately 225,000 ATMs, with operations in Australia, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, Puerto Rico, Spain, the UK and the USA. Direct Cash Payments Inc ( DCP) is a Canadian-based business operating roughly 25,000 ATMs across...
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
