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 case hub, now archived, captures the position as at the decision date of 10/10/2025; it is not being maintained. See the timeline. Case facts Outline CMA DMCCA 2024 investigation into whether Google ought to be designated as holding SMS for its provision of general search and search advertising services. Latest development On 10 October 2025, the CMA issued its final decision designating Google with SMS in the supply of general search services in the UK. Parties Google Background On 14 January 2025, the CMA released its investigation notice setting out the CMA’s grounds for commencing the investigation. On the same day, the CMA published an invitation to comment outlining the scope of its investigation......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 17 December 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Summary of a CMA Chapter I inquiry into suspected fixing of estate agents’ commission charges in Berkshire. Latest development On 15 June 2020, the CMA stated it had obtained legally binding director disqualification undertakings from: (i) Mr Stephen Jones, a director of Richard Worth Holdings Limited and Richard Worth Limited (in administration); and (ii) Mr Neal Mackenzie, a director of Michael Hardy & Company ( Wokingham) Limited, Michael Hardy & Company ( Lettings) Limited and Geocharbert UK Limited. Mr Jones agreed not to act as a director of any UK company for six and a half years, and Mr Mackenzie agreed to the same...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the decision on 18 December 2020 and is no longer maintained. For further details, see the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline of a CMA Chapter II investigation into Essential Pharma concerning an alleged abuse of dominance arising from its intention to cease supplying Priadel, a lithium-based medicine for the treatment of bipolar disorder. Latest developments On 18 December 2020, the CMA stated it had formally accepted commitments from Essential Pharma and closed the matter. Under these commitments, Essential Pharma will: provide appropriate and ongoing UK supplies of Priadel on terms agreed from time to time with the Department of Health and Social Care; refrain from issuing a discontinuation notice to the Department of Health and Social Care in relation to Priadel; ensure that any prospective divestment or licensing of the UK supply of Priadel does not...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 26 July 2016; it is no longer being maintained. For more detail, see timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline: A UK merger investigation into the proposed combination between Ladbrokes plc and certain businesses of Gala Coral Group Limited. The transaction features horizontal overlaps in the markets for licensed betting offices ( LBOs). Latest developments On 26 July 2016, the CMA published its final report and cleared the deal subject to remedies. For LBOs, the CMA concluded that the merger would be expected to give rise to an SLC in 642 local markets in Great Britain for the supply of gambling products in LBOs, as well as in the market for the supply of gambling products in Great Britain, due to the aggregated loss of...
CASE HUB See more, timeline. Case facts Overview of CMA’s Chapter I investigation into whether Leicester City FC and JD Sports breached Chapter I by colluding to curb competition in sales of Leicester City-branded clothing products. Latest developments On 31 July 2023, the CMA handed down its infringement decision. Leicester City FC received penalties totalling £880,000, reflecting a 20% settlement reduction. JD Sports self-reported the behaviour to the CMA and consequently obtained immunity under the CMA’s Leniency programme for this conduct......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 27 September 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline CMA Chapter I investigation into Elite Sports Group Limited and its parent Elite Corporation Limited, JD Sports Fashion Plc, and Rangers Football Club Limited together with its parent Rangers International Football Plc, for having breached UK competition law by unlawfully fixing prices of certain Rangers Football Club-branded clothing items ( Case 50930)... Latest developments On 27 September 2022, the CMA delivered an infringement decision concluding that Elite and JD Sports violated the Chapter I prohibition by operating an unlawful price-fixing arrangement on selected Rangers Football Club-branded apparel between September 2018 and July 2019. Rangers FC also participated in the collusion, but solely in relation to setting the retail price of adult home...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 30 October 2025; it is no longer being maintained. See the timeline for more. Case facts Overview of the CMA’s Chapter I investigation into alleged anti-competitive exchange of information among seven housebuilders regarding the supply of newly built residential homes in Great Britain. Latest development On 30 October 2025, the CMA stated it would accept revised commitments from the parties to tackle its competition concerns (see details below). Parties Barratt Redrow plc and its group companies ( Barratt Redrow): Barratt Redrow is a FTSE 100 housebuilder listed on the stock market, operating in England, Scotland and Wales. It sells homes under the Barratt Homes, Redrow and David Wilson Homes brands. Bellway plc and its group companies ( Bellway): Bellway is a FTSE 250 publicly listed...
CASE HUB (note–appeal lodged by Balmoral in Balmoral v CMA) ARCHIVED – this hub records the status as at 19 December 2016 and is no longer updated. See also Balmoral v CMA timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline CMA Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I probe into a suspected cartel in the supply of galvanised steel water storage tanks, covering customer allocation, price fixing, bid rigging, and the sharing of commercially sensitive data (case CE/9691/12). Latest developments On 19 December 2016, the CMA issued two infringement decisions. Decision 1 Following settlement and admissions of wrongdoing, the CMA determined that Franklin Hodge, Galglass, KW and CST operated a market‑sharing, price‑fixing and bid‑rigging cartel. Penalties imposed were: CST – no penalty owing to immunity Franklin Hodge – £2,015,135, including a 30% leniency reduction and a 20% settlement reduction Galglass – £587,926, including a 20% reduction for settling KW – £22,248, including a 20% reduction for...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the date of the decision of 10 January 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline. Case facts Outline Chapter II inquiry into whether ESS misused its dominant position in the supply of management information systems software by shifting customers from one‑year agreements to three‑year terms without giving them adequate opportunity to avoid the change and/or through the pricing of certain such software bundles/packages in a way that restricts competition. Latest developments On 10 January 2023, the CMA issued its decision to accept the commitments proposed by ESS (as set out below). Parties Education Software Solutions Limited ( ESS): ESS is the largest provider of school management information system ( MIS) software in England and Wales. Market(s) The provision of school management information system ( MIS) software in England and Wales. In the UK, most state schools are...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 23 May 2025; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline The CMA is running a Chapter II CA98 probe into Vifor, alleging abuse of dominance through misleading denigration of a competing iron therapy product by the company. Latest developments On 10 December 2024, the CMA opened a consultation process on commitments proposed by Vifor (see below). It formally closes on 17 January 2025. Parties Vifor Pharma ( Vifor): a global pharmaceutical business headquartered in Australia. Pharmacosmos: Pharmacosmos......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position as at the date commitments were accepted on 26 October 2017; it is no longer maintained. See the timeline and commentary for more Case facts Outline of a CMA Chapter I CA98 probe into suspected anti-competitive membership rules operated by the Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain, the trade association for travelling showmen at funfairs (case 50243). Latest developments On 26 October 2017, the CMA accepted commitments from the Guild to remedy its competition concerns and therefore closed the case, contingent on Guild members approving the proposed rule revisions. Under these commitments, the Guild will amend its membership rules by: allowing non-member showmen to attend fairs run by the Guild easing limits on rival fairs setting up near Guild events enhancing transparency by publishing the Guild’s rules online and clearly stating objective...
This table sets out all concluded probes by Hong Kong’s competition regulator (the Competition Commission—the CC) into suspected cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of market dominance since 2018. Note—only matters made public are included in this table. 2025 Investigations under the First Conduct Rule of the Competition Ordinance Case name, companies under investigation and industry Cleaning services — 2 undertakings and 3 individuals (listed here) Issues Restrictive agreements Developments Competition Tribunal delivers judgment—20/01/2025; fines totalling HK$11.31m imposed Settlement agreement reached—09/12/2024; fines totalling HK$10.96m imposed Investigations under the Second Conduct Rule of the Competition Ordinance Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments The CC has not yet issued any decisions under the Second Conduct Rule in 2025 2024 Investigations under the First Conduct Rule of the Competition Ordinance Case name, companies under investigation and industry IT solutions — 4 undertakings and 1 individual (listed...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment date of 18 July 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline National reference from the Italian Consiglio di Stato to the Court of Justice requesting a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU to clarify, amongst other matters and in so far as it concerns competition law, whether a provision in a professional body’s code of conduct stipulating minimum fees for professionals’ services contravenes Article 101(1) TFEU. On 18 July 2013, the Court of Justice ruled that rules of this type, as found in the Italian geologists’ code, amount to a decision by an ‘association of undertakings’ within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU; however, it falls to the national court, in light of the broader context in which the code produces its...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment date of 25 November 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C-372/19 SABAM—arising from a national reference in Belgium—sought clarification on whether, amongst other matters, Article 102 TFEU, considered alone or read with Article 16 of Directive 2014/26/ EU, should be understood as establishing an abuse of a dominant position where a copyright management organisation, holding a de facto monopoly, applies a remuneration model to organisers of musical events for the right to communicate musical works to the public, calculated, among other factors, by reference to turnover. Latest developments On 25 November 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, finding that the mere existence of SABAM’s tariff structure does not, in itself, indicate unfair pricing, nor does it, on its own, allow such an abuse to be...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 26 November 2013; it is no longer maintained See further, timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Appeals were lodged against the General Court’s judgments rejecting the appellants’ actions seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 30 November 2005, which levied fines on Gascogne Sack Deutschland Gmb H, Groupe Gascogne SA and Kendrion NV for their involvement in a cartel concerning the supply of industrial plastic bags within the EEA (‘ Industrial bags cartel’). On 26 November 2013, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeals in full. The matter concerns the attribution to a parent company of a subsidiary’s unlawful behaviour, including scenarios where the directly implicated subsidiary was acquired and then divested within a short timeframe. The case also addresses the requirement that...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This preserved case hub records the status as at the judgment dated 27 February 2014; it is no longer being maintained now...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment of 7 February 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline A national reference by the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky ( Slovakia) asked the Court of Justice, under Article 267 TFEU, for a preliminary ruling on whether, in assessing Articles 101(1) and 101(3) TFEU, it is material that a competitor excluded by others’ collusive conduct is, nonetheless, operating unlawfully on the relevant market. On 7 February 2013, the Court of Justice held, amongst other points, that the alleged illegality of Akcenta’s activities in Slovakia is irrelevant to deciding whether the Article 101(1) TFEU prohibition is engaged. Parties Slovenská sporiteľňa a.s. ( Slovenská sporiteľňa) Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky ( Slovakian Competition Authority) Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky ( Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic—the referring...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 25 November 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Case C‑823/18, Commission v GEA Group, concerns an appeal challenging the General Court’s ruling in Case T‑640/16, which had annulled the Commission’s revised decision relating to the heat stabilisers cartel ( AT.38589). Latest development On 25 November 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment: it upheld the appeal, quashed the General Court’s judgment and remitted the matter to the General Court. Parties Appellant: European Commission (the Commission) Defendant: GEA Group AG ( GEA), a German provider of process technology serving the food sector and numerous other industries Market(s) Heat stabilisers, in solid or liquid form, are incorporated into polyvinyl chloride ( PVC) products to enhance heat resistance. They also boost the flexibility, stiffness and clarity of finished PVC goods, and...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the date of the judgment on 15 June 2013; it is no longer being maintained...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment dated 30 April 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further the timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C‑627/18 Nelson Antunes de Cunha v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP — a national reference from Portugal seeking clarification on, amongst other matters, whether the limitation period for exercising the power to recover State aid applies (i) solely to relations between the EU and the Member State to which the decision to recover aid is addressed, or (ii) whether it also governs relations between that Member State and the opponent, as the beneficiary of the aid considered incompatible with the Single Market. Latest developments On 30 April 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, ruling that national limitation periods for the recovery of unlawful State aid cannot be shorter than those under EU...
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
