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 sets out the position as at the decision date of 5 March 2026 and is not being updated. For more detail, see the timeline. Case facts Outline of the UK merger probe into Constellation Developments Limited’s completed purchase of ABVR Holdings Limited. The deal features horizontal overlaps in the provision of business-to-business ( B2B) used vehicle auction services across Great Britain. Latest developments On 5 March 2025, the CMA published its final report, concluding the transaction has not led to, and is not expected to lead to, an SLC in the provision of B2B used vehicle auction services. The CMA considered that, while ABVR Holdings Limited had constrained British Car Auctions Limited before the merger, it would probably have left the market without the deal, and any buyer of its assets would not have exerted a significant...
Prepared in collaboration with Bilal Shaukat, partner, and Shahbakht Pirzada, associate partner, at Pakistani law firm RIAA Barker Gillette, on key issues concerning merger control in Pakistan. Note—to check whether notification thresholds in Pakistan and across the globe are satisfied, see Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Pakistani merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Pakistan? The Competition Commission of Pakistan ( CCP) has recently issued the Competition Exemption Regulations 2020 (2020 Regulations). These Regulations set out the procedure for seeking an exemption from a prohibited agreement. The Competition Act 2010 (the Act) forbids undertakings and associations of undertakings from entering into prohibited agreements. Prohibited agreements—or, for associations of undertakings, decisions—concern the production, distribution, acquisition or control of goods, or the supply of...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 16 November 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts UK merger enquiry into Carpenter Co.’s proposed purchase of Recticel NV/ SA’s engineered foams business. The deal overlaps horizontally in making and supplying multiple flexible polyurethane foam types in the UK. Latest developments On 16 November 2022, the CMA published its final report, concluding the transaction would be expected to lead to an SLC in the UK in: (i) comfort foam (uncut foam for mattresses, upholstery, and the like); (ii) unconverted technical foam (for sponges, etc.); and (iii) converted comfort foam (cut material ready for larger items such as mattresses). To address the SLC, the CMA decided the most effective remedy was for Carpenter Co. to divest the majority of the UK arm of...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Case T- 59/22 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub records the position as at the decision dated 19 November 2021 and is no longer updated. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission investigation under Article 101 TFEU into a cartel concerning the supply of certain canned vegetables to retailers and/or food service operators in the EEA ( AT.40127). Latest development On 19 November 2021, the Commission adopted a second infringement decision, imposing fines totalling €20m on Conserve Italia (the Commission’s 2021 decision). Conserve Italia received a 50% reduction in its penalty for co-operation with the Commission’s investigation under the 2006 Leniency Notice. Parties Bonduelle, a France‑based producer of processed vegetables Coroos, a Netherlands‑based company focussed on the preservation of fruits, vegetables and pulses Groupe CECAB, one of France’s leading agricultural co‑operatives and a major...
ARCHIVED – this archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 31 October 2019 and is no longer updated. For further details, see the timeline commentary and related cases... Case facts Outline Appeals were lodged against the High Court’s judgment on a damages claim by Brit Ned Development Ltd arising from the power cables cartel involving ABB AB and ABB Limited ( Commission decision AT.39610)... Latest developments On 31 October 2019, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment. Brit Ned Development Limited’s appeal was dismissed in full. As to ABB AB and ABB Limited, the Court of Appeal partly allowed their appeal regarding the award of damages for ‘cartel savings’, said to contravene core principles of compensation... Parties Brit Ned Development Limited ( Brit Ned): a joint venture between National Grid and Tenne T, operators of the UK and Dutch...
This table provides an overview of all concluded investigations by Austria’s competition regulator (the Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde— BWB) into suspected cartels, anti-competitive arrangements, and abuses of dominance ( Articles 101/102 TFEU and national counterparts) since 2017. Note—only decisions that are public are presented in this table......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision on 27 January 2016; it is no longer maintained. For further details, see the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into a cartel concerning alternators and starters for car engines ( AT.40028). The cartel comprised bid and tender coordination, customer allocation and the exchange of commercially sensitive information. Latest development On 27 January 2016, the Commission announced that, following a settlement, it had issued an enforcement decision against Melco ( Mitsubishi Electric), Hitachi and Denso, imposing combined fines totalling €137.789m......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 24 July 2018 and is no longer updated. See also the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU probe into vertical limits on online sales of consumer electronic products imposed by Asus ( Case AT.40465). Latest developments On 24 July 2018, the Commission adopted an infringement decision against Asus, imposing a €63.522m fine (after an ‘informal settlement’) for applying fixed or minimum resale prices to its online retailers in breach of Article 101 TFEU. Parties Asus is a Taiwan-based company that manufactures computer and telephone hardware and electronic products. Background The Commission launched its investigation in February 2017 on the basis of material obtained during its e-commerce sector inquiry. Market(s) Markets covering the manufacture, distribution and retail of consumer electronic products, in particular computer and telephone hardware......
Johnson & Johnson/ Novartis ( Fentanyl) ( COMP/39.685) [ Archived] CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this hub reflects the position at the date of the 10 December 2013 decision and is no longer maintained. See the timeline, commentary and related cases for further details. Case facts Outline European Commission investigation under Article 101 TFEU into Johnson & Johnson and Novartis regarding Fentanyl (case number COMP/39.685). Latest developments The Commission imposed fines of €10.798m on Johnson & Johnson (and subsidiaries) and €5.493m on Novartis (and subsidiaries). Parties Johnson & Johnson (including subsidiaries) Novartis (including subsidiaries) Market(s) Pharmaceuticals (pain-relief medicines). The medicine concerned is Fentanyl, a painkiller around 100 times stronger than morphine. Its primary use is pain relief for people with cancer......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archive records the position as at the date the deal was abandoned on 16 December 2021 and is no longer being maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline: European Commission merger inquiry into International Airlines Group’s proposed purchase of Air Europa ( M.9637). The contemplated deal would create a horizontal overlap in the market for providing passenger air transport services. Latest developments On 16 December 2021, the parties withdrew the Commission notification and confirmed that the transaction had been abandoned. Parties International Airlines Group ( IAG): Headquartered across Spain and the UK, IAG owns Spain’s flag carrier Iberia and the Spanish low-cost airline Vueling, as well as the UK flag carrier British Airways, Level, and Ireland’s flag carrier Aer Lingus. IAG ranks as Europe’s third-largest airline group, behind Ryanair and Lufthansa, and is the largest in Spain. Iberia belongs to the Oneworld...
This month witnessed the UK Government laying before Parliament the much-anticipated Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill, ushering in extensive updates to competition and consumer rules (among them revisions to the CMA’s remit to assess mergers); the European Commission unveiling substantial measures to streamline the EUMR merger review; the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission urging a comprehensive reset of Australia’s merger control system; higher notification thresholds in Zambia; and Indonesia’s competition authority confirming a reshaped merger control framework together with the rollout of a merger filing fee. UK— Government introduces the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Bill On 25 April 2025, the UK Government presented the long-awaited Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill ( DCCB). The DCCB is broad in reach and spans three principal strands: (i) establishing a fresh regulatory regime for major digital platforms; (ii) the first significant overhaul of UK...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 4 May 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further the timeline, commentary and related cases for further context. Case facts Outline European Commission investigation under Article 102 TFEU into suspected anti-competitive behaviour in the e‑books market by Amazon, with a particular focus specifically on most‑favoured‑nation ( MFN) clauses ( Case AT.40153). Latest developments On 4 May 2017, the Commission accepted binding commitments from Amazon and brought its investigation to a close. Under these commitments, Amazon will: not enforce (i) any relevant provisions obliging publishers to grant Amazon terms and conditions matching those given to Amazon’s rivals, or (ii) any such provision compelling publishers to notify Amazon of those terms and conditions......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgments of 5 October 2020 and is no longer being maintained. See timeline, Case facts, Outline. CASE HUB— Cases T‑583/18 GVN v Commission and T‑597/18 Hermann Albers v Commission—actions for annulment before the General Court against the European Commission’s decision of 12 July 2018, which concluded that German legislation on local transport in the Land of Lower Saxony did not amount to State aid ( Cases SA.46538 and SA.46697)... Latest developments On 5 October 2020, the General Court delivered its judgment, dismissing both appeals in their entirety... Parties Applicants: Gesamtverband Verkehrsgewerbe Niedersachsen e. V (hereafter, GVN) Hermann Albers e. K (hereafter, Hermann) Defendant: European Commission (hereafter, the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 7 October 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline An appeal was lodged before the General Court to set aside the Commission’s decision of 3 August 2011, which refused Schenker AG access to selected materials in the Commission’s administrative file concerning the ‘ Airfreight cartel’ inquiry. On 7 October 2014, the General Court partly annulled that decision for failing to grant access to a non-confidential version of the Airfreight infringement decision, while dismissing the remainder of Schenker’s action. Parties Applicant: Schenker AG ( Schenker) Defendant: European Commission Other parties: Air Canada Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd ( Cathay Pacific) Lufthansa Cargo AG ( Lufthansa) Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV ( KLM) Martinair Holland NV ( Martinair) Société Air France SA ( Air France) Swiss International Air Lines AG (...
Most private competition claims in England proceed on a tortious footing, commonly pleading breach of statutory duty, and the discussion below centres on tort-based claims. Nonetheless, it should be acknowledged at the outset that English law does, in certain circumstances, allow damages linked to anti-competitive behaviour to be recovered on a non-tortious basis. For example, a contract may stipulate payment of a liquidated amount if a counterparty is found to have committed a relevant infringement of competition law. Indeed, some companies now incorporate such terms within their standard supplier agreements. It is also, of course, possible to seek remedies other than compensatory damages. Brief mention is made below of exemplary damages, which are awarded not to make the claimant whole but to punish the defendant. Likewise, restitutionary damages aim to remove part or all of the benefits obtained by the...
Note—to check whether notification thresholds in the Central African Republic and worldwide are satisfied, please refer to: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the CAR merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in the CAR? The Central African Republic ( CAR) embedded competition rules in its Commercial Code, Law No. 2016-06 of 30 December 2016 (the Commercial Code), replacing the former competition statute, Law No. 92.002 of 26 May 1992. Oversight of competition matters in the CAR rests with the Commission Nationale de la Concurrence ( CNC). The CAR also belongs to the Central African Economic and Monetary Community ( CEMAC), whose merger control framework is set out in Regulation No. 06/19- UEAC-639- CM-33 of 7 April 2019 on competition (the CEMAC Competition...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 6 May 2025; it is no longer being updated. See further timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline CMA Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I CA98 investigation into a revenue‑sharing arrangement, the Atlantic Joint Business Agreement, between International Airlines Group ( Aer Lingus Limited, British Airways plc, and Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España S. A), American Airlines, and Finnair OYJ, covering air transport services linking Europe and North America ( Case 50616). Latest developments On 6 August 2025, the CMA stated it would accept modified commitments from the parties to remedy its competition concerns (see further details below). Parties International Airlines Group ( IAG) ( Aer Lingus Limited ( EI), British Airways plc ( BA) and Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España S. A ( IB)): IAG was created in 2010 via the merger of BA and...
EU and UK competition law only applies to ‘undertakings’ These are economic entities engaged in supplying goods or services to the market on a commercial footing. For more detail on what counts as an ‘undertaking’ and what is meant by an ‘economic’ activity, see: Article 101(1) TFEU—the prohibition on restrictive agreements—the ‘undertaking’ concept. In many situations it is straightforward to see that competition rules attach to an organisation (eg a company or another commercial venture such as a partnership or a trading body). In other situations, notably where activities are undertaken by public sector bodies, the categorisation is less straightforward. Competition law polices the line between acceptable and unacceptable commercial conduct so that markets work properly and a level playing field is preserved, enabling all rivals to compete. This ensures that markets function adequately and that a level playing field is...
1. What is the applicable legislation? South Africa does not have a single, overarching statutory scheme governing foreign direct investment ( FDI). Below is a non-exhaustive overview of key legislation relevant to FDI in South Africa: Protection of Investment Act 22 of 2015, as amended Competition Act 89 of 1998 ( Competition Act 1998) Companies Act 71 of 2008 ( Companies Act) Companies Amendment Act 16 of 2024 and the Companies Second Amendment Act 17 of 2024 ( Companies Amendment Acts 2024) Companies Regulations, 2011 issued under the Companies Act 2008 ( Companies Regulations 2011), and GNR.1111 of 1 December 1961: Regulations made under the Currency and Exchanges Act 9 of 1933 and, in relation to each of the above, as amended 2. Which government or other body (or bodies) reviews foreign...
This table sets out concluded European Commission probes into abuses of dominant positions (infringements of Article 102 TFEU) from 2013 onwards. Note—only matters that have been publicly disclosed appear here. For ongoing European Commission Article 102 TFEU investigations, see EU behavioural investigations—ongoing cases tracker. For appeals pending before the General Court, see General Court appeals—ongoing cases tracker and General Court Article 102 TFEU appeals—closed cases tracker; for appeals before the Court of Justice, see Court of Justice appeals—ongoing cases tracker and Court of Justice Article 102 appeals—closed cases tracker. For completed investigations into breaches of Article 101 TFEU, see EU Article 101 TFEU investigations—closed cases tracker. 2026 Case name, companies under investigation and industry Medical devices ( AT.40755) — Edwards Lifesciences Issues Abuse of dominance concerns—curtailing rivals’ access to essential...
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
