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 archived case hub records the position as at the judgment of 21 October 2020 and is no longer updated. For more, see the timeline. Case facts Outline Case C-556/19 Eco TLC—a reference from France—asked whether, amongst other points, a scheme under which a private, non-profit eco-entity, approved by the public authorities, takes contributions from those placing a defined product category on the market and contracting with it, in return for organising the treatment of waste from those products on their behalf, and then redistributes to sorting and recovery operators subsidies whose levels are fixed in the approval in line with environmental and social objectives, should be considered unlawful State aid. Latest developments On 22 October 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, holding that a French textile waste recovery scheme did not constitute State...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the situation as at the judgment dated 26 March 2020; it is no longer updated or maintained and will not receive further changes. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court’s ruling in Case T- 423/14, which dismissed an application seeking annulment of the Commission decision ( SA.34572) that determined numerous guarantees afforded to Larko amounted to unlawful State aid. Latest developments On 26 March 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, in which it partially allowed the appeal. Parties Appellant: Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE ( Larko) Respondent: European Commission (the Commission) Background Background Larko is a major enterprise focused on the extraction and processing of laterite ore, the extraction of lignite, and the production of ferronickel and its by-products......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment of 18 April 2024; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline A national reference from the Czech Republic seeking guidance on applying Directive 2014/104 (the Damages Directive) in a damages action issued against Google LLC for an alleged infringement of Article 102 TFEU. Latest developments On 18 April 2024, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, finding that the former Czech limitation rules conflict with EU law. Those rules render the exercise of the right to obtain compensation for harm arising from a competition law infringement practically impossible or excessively difficult. Parties Applicant: Heureka Group a.s. ( Heureka) Defendant: Google LLC ( Google) Markets Price comparison services. Background to reference Background Heureka operates in the Czech Republic in the sale price comparison services market. It brought a claim before the Czech courts seeking damages from Google LLC...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 23 October 2014 and is not being updated. See further: timeline commentary related/relevant cases Case facts Outline National reference from the Latvian Augstākās Tiesas Senāts to the Court of Justice, seeking a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU to clarify several issues concerning the application of Regulation ( EC) No 44/2001 (the Brussels Regulation) to a claim for competition damages — in particular, matters arising from a challenge, in Latvia, to the enforcement of interim measures ordered in Lithuania. On 23 October 2014, the Court of Justice held that a damages action for breach of competition law constitutes a ‘civil and commercial matter’ and thus falls within the ambit of the Brussels Regulation. The Brussels Regulation lays down the core parameters for identifying...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 22 October 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Case C‑702/19, Silver Plastics and Johannes Reifenhäuser v Commission — an appeal brought before the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgment in Case T‑582/15, which had dismissed an action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision concerning a cartel in retail food packaging trays ( AT.39563). Latest development On 22 October 2020, the Court of Justice handed down its ruling, rejecting the appeal in its entirety. Parties Appellant: Silver Plastics Gmbh and Johannes Refifenhäuser Holding Gmb H & Co. KG (together, Silver Plastics) Defendant: European Commission (the Commission) Market(s) Retail food packaging trays. Rigid retail trays are manufactured from polystyrene foam or polypropylene. They are used to package food sold in shops and...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 14 November 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related/similar cases. Case facts Case C-599/18 P, Silec Cable and General Cable v Commission—an appeal brought before the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgment in Case T-438/14, which dismissed an action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision. That decision found a breach of Article 101 TFEU and imposed penalties on Silec Cable for involvement in a cartel on the high-voltage power cables market ( AT.39610). Latest development On 14 November 2019, the Court of Justice handed down its ruling, rejecting the appeal in full. Parties Appellants: Silec Cable SAS and General Cable Corp. (together, Silec). Silec operates in the manufacture and supply of underground and submarine power...
CASE HUB (date of judgment—09/03/2017) See further: timeline and related/similar cases Case facts ARCHIVED — this archived case hub captures the position as at the decision dated 9 September 2017; it is no longer maintained. Outline An appeal was lodged against the General Court’s ruling that upheld the Commission’s decision of 5 December 2012, which found breaches of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53(1) EEA and levied aggregate fines of €150.8m on Samsung group companies for alleged involvement in two separate cathode ray tube cartels (the ‘ TV and computer monitor tubes cartels’). On 9 March 2017, the Court of Justice rejected the appeal in full, thereby confirming the penalties imposed jointly and severally on Samsung SDI and Samsung SDI Malaysia. The case remains significant as it constitutes one of the largest overall fines ever imposed for an EU competition law infringement, even after the General Court reduced...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment on 30 May 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Quinn Barlo appealed against the General Court’s judgment that dismissed its action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 31 May 2006, which had imposed a fine on Quinn Barlo for its purported role in a worldwide cartel concerning the supply of acrylic glass (the ‘ Acrylic glass cartel’). On 30 May 2013, the Court of Justice rejected the appeal in full. Among other matters, the case concerns the methodology for calculating fines and the Court’s exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction to modify or impose penalties, even where this may depart from the Commission’s fining...
ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the situation as at the judgment of 17 November 2022 and is no longer being updated... CASE HUB See further, timeline... Case facts Outline An appeal was brought against the General Court’s judgment of 7 July 2021, which rejected an action to annul the Commission’s decision of 9 July 2019 concerning alleged unlawful State aid to the fossil fuel sector through reduced property tax ( SA.44671)... Latest developments On 17 November 2022, the Court of Justice delivered its ruling, dismissing the appeal. It concluded that: (i) the General Court did not err in finding no serious difficulties that would oblige the Commission to open the formal investigation procedure; and (ii) there was no indication that the General Court misrepresented the evidence placed before it... Parties Appellants: Irish Wind Farmers’ Association Carrons Windfarm Ltd ( Carrons Windfarm) Foyle Windfarm Ltd ( Foyle...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment date of 8 May 2013; it is no longer updated. For more, see: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Eni Sp A appealed the General Court’s ruling, which partially upheld the Commission’s decision finding an infringement and imposing a €272.25m fine, for which Eni and its subsidiary Versalis Sp A were held jointly and severally liable, stemming from the latter’s alleged involvement in an EU‑wide cartel for the supply of butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene‑butadiene rubber (hereafter BR and ESBR, collectively ‘synthetic rubber’) from 20 May 1996 to 28 November 2002. While the infringement finding stood, the General Court reduced the penalty to €181.5m, concluding the Commission had not substantiated the 50% increase for recidivism. The European Commission filed a cross‑appeal seeking to overturn the General Court’s...
ARCHIVED — this hub captures the position as at the judgment dated 30 January 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal to the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgments in Cases T‑325/16 and T‑621/16, which sought annulment of two Commission decisions ordering dawn raids—the first concerning Case AT.40156— Falcon and the second concerning Case AT.40401— Twins. Latest development On 30 January 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment and rejected the appeals in full. Parties Appellant: České dráhy ( CD), the main railway operator in the Czech Republic. Defendant: European Commission Background AT.40156— Falcon The Commission’s ongoing inquiry in Falcon ( AT.40156) concerns alleged exclusionary abuses under Article 102 TFEU on the rail route linking Prague and Ostrava. In 2011 and 2012, two new rail operators, Regio Jet and LEO Express, began passenger services on the Prague– Ostrava line (...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 2 March 2021 and is no longer being maintained. See further: timeline Case facts Outline Outline Appeal against the General Court judgment in Case T- 98/16, which allowed Italy’s action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 23 December 2015. That decision had concluded that funding provided to Bancas Tercas through the Italian mandatory deposit guarantee scheme infringed EU State aid rules. Latest developments On 2 March 2021, the Court of Justice delivered its ruling and rejected the appeal in full. The Court confirmed that the General Court was right to find that measures taken by a consortium of Italian banks to assist one of its members did not amount to State aid, as they were not attributable to the Italian State......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 14 March 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts A national reference was made by the Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága ( Hungary) to the Court of Justice under Article 267 TFEU, asking whether framework arrangements between insurance companies and vehicle repairers—or between insurers and a car repairers’ association, where the hourly repair rate depends on the number or proportion of policies sold—amount to restrictions of competition ‘by object’ within Article 101(1) TFEU. Outline On 13 March 2013, the Court of Justice held that pricing agreements for the repair of insured vehicles concluded between insurers and repair shops have an anti-competitive object and are therefore prohibited, as they are, ‘by their very nature’, harmful to the proper functioning of normal...
CASE HUB See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeals challenge the General Court’s judgment in Case T-616/18, which dismissed an attempt to set aside the Commission’s decision to accept binding commitments proposed by Gazprom under Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003. Those commitments were intended to resolve competition concerns that Gazprom had abused its dominant position in Central and Eastern European gas markets. Outcome On 6 June 2024, Advocate General Rantos delivered his opinion advising the Court of Justice to reject the appeal. He found, among other points, that the General Court did not err in declining to treat the Commission’s application of the principle of energy solidarity as equivalent to imposing positive obligations on the Commission that exceeded the scope of the complaints brought against Gazprom. Parties Applicant: Orlen S. A., formerly Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen S. A., formerly Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S. A. ( Orlen) ...
ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 17 May 2022 and is no longer updated. See further, Case facts. Outline of the CAT’s ruling on an application for a collective proceedings order by the Consumers’ Association, seeking permission to act as class representative to bring opt-out collective proceedings under section 47B of the Competition Act 1998. Latest development On 17 May 2022, the CAT handed down its judgment, finding that: the Consumers’ Association satisfies the authorisation condition; the claims to be combined satisfy the eligibility condition; a clause in the Consumers’ Association’s after-the-event insurance must be amended, but no anti-avoidance endorsement is required for its post- CPO after-the-event policies; and a CPO was granted on an opt-out basis for UK-domiciled class members and on an opt-out basis for class members domiciled outside the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archive captures the position as at the judgment dated 7 March 2014 and is not updated. See timeline, commentary and related cases. Note—a later appeal was filed in the Court of Appeal—see Ryanair Holdings plc v CMA ( Court of Appeal). Case facts Outline Application to the Competition Appeal Tribunal ( CAT) to review the Competition Commission’s ( CC) final report on Ryanair’s completed purchase of a minority interest in Aer Lingus, in which the CC required Ryanair to cut its holding in Aer Lingus from 29.8% to 5%. The CAT dismissed the appeal on 07/03/2014. Parties Ryanair—the largest low-cost carrier in Europe, operating flights from 49 base airports across Europe; headquartered in Dublin, one of its biggest bases. Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA) (formerly the Competition Commission (...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 12 January 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal challenging the General Court’s order in Case T‑472/20, which dismissed proceedings contesting the Commission’s decision of 20 May 2020. That decision refused a complaint by Mr Frédéric Jouvin alleging anti‑competitive co‑ordination by a cartel comprising several companies operating in the postal, distribution and delivery sectors ( Commission Decision C(2020) 3503 final). Outcome On 12 January 2023, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, rejecting the appeal in full as being partly unfounded and partly inadmissible. Notably, the Court held that Mr Jouvin did not identify any error of law said to vitiate the order under challenge. It further recalled that, in the context of an appeal, and absent an allegation of distortion of the facts, the Court of...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 14 May 2020 and is no longer updated. For more, see the timeline, commentary, and related/similar cases. Case facts Outline Case C-607/18 NKT Verwaltung and NKT v Commission — an appeal before the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgment in Case T-447/14, which had dismissed an action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision concerning the high‑voltage power cables cartel ( AT.39610). Latest development On 14 May 2020, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment and partially allowed the appeal. It held that the General Court erred by: rejecting a plea alleging infringement of NKT’s rights of defence; concluding that the Commission had shown NKT knew, or ought reasonably to have anticipated, the cartel element involving a joint refusal to supply accessories and technical support to rivals outside the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment of 17 December 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court seeking annulment, or a reduction, of the fine arising from the Commission’s decision of 12 November 2008, which found infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and imposed a €370m penalty on Pilkington for its alleged role in an EEA-wide car glass cartel between 10 March 1998 and 3 September 2002 (‘ Car glass cartel’). The case focuses chiefly on whether there was a ‘single and continuous infringement’. Parties Applicants (collectively, Pilkington): Pilkington Group Ltd Pilkington Automotive Ltd Pilkington Automotive Deutschland Gmb H Pilkington Holding Gmb H Pilkington Italia Sp A Defendant: European...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 10 October 2014; it is no longer maintained. For further details, see: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline An appeal was lodged before the General Court seeking annulment, or alternatively a reduction, of the fine arising from the Commission’s decision of 12 November 2008 (as amended on 11 February 2009). That decision found infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and imposed a €4.396m penalty on Soliver for its alleged involvement in an EEA‑wide car glass cartel between 19 November 2001 and 11 March 2003. The dispute turns chiefly on whether there was a ‘single and continuous infringement’ and, in particular, on the evidential standard the Commission must meet to establish such an infringement......
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
