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
Note—consult Where to Notify to check if notification thresholds in Seychelles and across the globe are met. Seychelles is a member of both the Southern African Development Community and of COMESA, which administers a supra-national merger control system. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the regime and are any updates or developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Seychelles? The principal statute in Seychelles is the Fair Trading Act 2022 ( FTA 2022). It took effect on 1 August 2022, repealing the Consumer Protection Act 2010 ( CPA 2010), the Fair Competition Act 2009 ( FCA 2009) and the Fair Trading Commission Act 2009. The Fair Trading Commission ( FTC) is the primary statutory authority tasked with preventing and/or controlling anti-competitive mergers. A notable reform brought in by the FTA 2022 is the...
1. What is the applicable legislation? Control of foreign direct investment ( FDI) in Spain is primarily governed by: Spanish Act 19/2003 on the legal regime of capital movements and economic transactions abroad ( Act 19/2003) ( Ley 19/2003, de 4 de julio, sobre régimen jurídico de los movimientos de capitales y de las transacciones económicas con el exterior y sobre determinadas medidas de prevención del blanqueo de capitales); and Royal Decree 571/2023 of 4 July 2023 on foreign investments ( Real Decreto 571/2023, de 4 de julio de 2023, sobre inversiones exteriores), in force from 1 September 2023, which develops the FDI regimes in Spain. 2. Which government or other body (or bodies) reviews foreign investments? Under Spain’s FDI regime, procedures are generally overseen by the Directorate General for International Trade and Investments ( Subdirectorate of Foreign Investments) of the Ministry for...
These tables present completed appeals brought by UK competition regulators before the Competition Appeal Tribunal, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, concerning decisions under Article 101 TFEU and/or Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998, and Article 102 TFEU and/or Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998. Related judicial review matters are also covered. For live appeals, see UK competition appeals—ongoing cases tracker. For completed CMA and OFT matters, see UK behavioural investigations under Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I Competition Act—ongoing cases tracker and UK behavioural investigations under Article 102 TFEU/ Chapter II Competition Act—closed cases tracker. UK Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I Competition Act 1998 appeals Appeals to the Competition Appeal Tribunal Keltbray Limited & Keltbray Holding Ltd v CMA (1588/1/12/23) Issues: Challenge to the CMA’s Supply of...
The list below covers concluded competition General Court appeals concerning Article 102 TFEU. For live General Court appeals, consult the General Court appeals—ongoing cases tracker. For appeals pending before the Court of Justice, see Court of Justice appeals—ongoing cases tracker, and for concluded Court of Justice appeals under Article 102 TFEU, refer to the Court of Justice Article 102 appeals—closed cases tracker. 2025 Case T- 1129/23 — Intel Corporation v Commission Challenge to the Commission’s decision in Intel Corporation (re‑imposed fine) ( AT.37990), re‑imposing a €376.36m fine on Intel for a previously established abuse of dominance in the x86 CPU market. See application. Judgment delivered—10/12/2025; appeal dismissed, with a reduction of the fine. Lodged—01/12/2023. Appeal subsequently filed before the Court of Justice in Case C- 143/26 P. Joined Cases T-...
The tables that follow set out concluded competition General Court appeal matters under the EU Merger Regulation. For live General Court appeals, see the General Court appeals—ongoing cases tracker. For appeals pending before the Court of Justice, consult the Court of Justice appeals—ongoing cases tracker. 2025 Case T-289/24, Brasserie Nationale and Munhowen v Commission Challenge to the Commission decision in Munhowen‑ Brasserie Nationale v Boissons Heintz, No C (2024) 1788 final, seeking to annul acceptance, under Article 22 EUMR, of Luxembourg’s request to review Brasserie Nationale’s acquisition of Boisoons Hentz under the EUMR. See Application. Developments: Judgment delivered—02/07/2025; appeal dismissed; Hearing—06/03/2025; Lodged—03/06/2024. Appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C‑572/25. Case T-507/24, Kingspan Group v Commission Appeal against the...
This overview sets out all finalised cases by Hungary’s competition authority (the Gasdasagi Versenyhivatal— GVH)) concerning suspected cartels, anti-competitive arrangements and abuses of dominance ( Articles 101/102 TFEU and national counterparts) from 2018 onwards. Note—only investigations that have entered the public domain are listed here... 2025 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/ Article 11 of the Hungarian Competition Act Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Garbage trucks and sewer cleaning vehicles Volvo Hungária Kereskedelmi MUT Kft Seres Gépipari Kereskedelmi Interteher He Hans Eibinger Eurotrade Kft GIF Modul Issues: Restrictive arrangements—bid rigging Developments: Infringement finding—05/12/2025; fines totalling HUF 1.3bn imposed Lighting distribution Lutec Issues: Restrictive arrangements— RPM Developments: Infringement decision—10/07/2025; fines totalling HUF 13.5m imposed Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/ Article 21 of the Hungarian Competition Act Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Song lyrics Google Issues: Concerns that Google abused its dominant position by self-preferencing its own service when displaying the lyrics of...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment of 21 December 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline A Belgian preliminary reference seeking clarification on how Article 101 TFEU applies to specific football rules. Latest developments On 21 December 2023, the Court of Justice delivered its ruling and indicated that UEFA and the Belgian FA’s ‘home grown players’ rules could breach EU competition law. Parties Applicants: UL. SA Royal Antwerp Football Club Defendant: Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL Market Football Background to reference Background UL, a footballer born in 1986, holds the nationality of a third country alongside Belgian nationality. He has played professionally in Belgium for many years. He spent several seasons with Royal Antwerp, a professional football club based in Belgium, and now plays for another Belgian professional club. UEFA is an association governed by Swiss law, based in Nyon (...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 29 July 2024; it is no longer updated. For more, see the timeline Case facts Outline A reference from Portugal asks for guidance on how Article 101 TFEU should be interpreted regarding certain exchanges of information. Latest developments On 29 July 2024, the Court of Justice held that a solitary exchange of confidential data between rivals can amount to a restriction by object. That applies where the information is confidential and strategic, as it can disclose a competitor’s intended future conduct on the relevant market. Parties Applicants: Banco BPN/ BIC Português, SA, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA, Portuguese branch, Banco Português de Investimento SA ( BPI), Banco Espírito Santo SA (in liquidation), Banco Santander Totta SA, Barclays Bank Plc, Caixa Económica Montepio Geral – Caixa Económica Bancária, SA, Caixa Geral de...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position as at the decision of 7 September 2017; it is no longer maintained. See the timeline and commentary for further information. Case facts Outline National reference from the Austrian Oberster Gerichtshof ( Austrian Supreme Court) to the Court of Justice seeking a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, aimed at clarifying whether converting a solely controlled undertaking into a jointly controlled joint venture can constitute a 'concentration' within the meaning of the EU Merger Regulation, as defined therein, where the resulting joint venture is not 'full-function' in nature (ie lacks the necessary independence from its parents). Central to this issue—and its consequences for when transactions must be notified to the European Commission in practice—is interpreting and understanding the interaction between Articles 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the EU Merger...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub captures the position as at the date of the judgment of 3 March 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, the timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Case C-75/18 Vodafone Magyarország — a reference from Hungary seeking clarification on whether, among other tax matters, progressively taxing economically stronger undertakings amounts to unlawful State aid in favour of weaker undertakings Latest developments On 21 January 2020, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment Parties Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési Zrt. ( Vodafone). Vodafone is a Hungarian public limited company. Its sole shareholder is Vodafone Europe BV, a company registered in the...
CASE HUB This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 3 April 2019 and is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary, and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C‑617/17 Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie — a national reference from Poland seeking clarification of the ne bis in idem (double jeopardy) principle and its operation in concurrent competition enquiries and parallel investigations. Latest developments On 3 April 2019, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment in Case C‑617/17 Powszechny Zaklad Ubezpieczeń na Zycie S. A., a reference from Poland asking how ne bis in idem (double jeopardy) applies where a national competition authority ( NCA) has levied a fine on an undertaking for anti‑competitive behaviour following the parallel application of both national and EU competition rules. In that decision, the Court of Justice concurred with Advocate General Wahl’s opinion and held that fines...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this case hub captures the position as at the judgment date of 20 December 2017 and is no longer updated. See also: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVE—20/12/2017 Outline Appeal lodged by Trioplast challenging the General Court’s ruling that entirely rejected an action to annul a Commission letter requesting late interest linked to a fine set by the Commission on 30 November 2015 (concerning a Trioplast subsidiary and its involvement in the ‘industrial bags’ cartel) ( AT.38354). That correspondence was issued in the context of measures adopted by the Commission following the General Court’s judgment in Case T-40/16 Trioplast Industrier v Commission, which reduced the fine for which Trioplast was held jointly and severally liable. Outcome On 20 December 2017, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment dismissing Trioplast’s appeal in full, on the basis that the General Court was right to conclude the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the date of the decision on 14 November 2017; it is no longer maintained and remains archived. See further: timeline, case commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline A national reference by the French Cour de cassation ( French Supreme Court) was made to the Court of Justice, under Article 267 TFEU, for a preliminary ruling, seeking, in essence, to clarify whether, indeed, certain specific concerted practices and joint arrangements relating to the production and marketing of endive in France—conduct that would otherwise breach Article 101 TFEU and/or Member State equivalent—might nevertheless potentially fall outside the prohibition on restrictive agreements, owing to the agricultural sector’s particular features and importance in the EU, and, in particular, the precedence the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy ( CAP), in principle, enjoys over competition law objectives under the TFEU......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 20 June 2013; it is not updated. For more, see: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline An appeal by Guillermo Cañas challenged the General Court’s ruling dismissing his action seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 12 October 2009, which had declined his complaint for lack of sufficient Community interest. The complaint alleged breaches of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by the World Anti- Doping Agency, Association of Tennis Professionals Tour Inc, and the International Council of Arbitration for Sport ( ICAS). On 20 June 2013, the Court of Justice rejected the appeal in full. The dispute centres on whether an applicant for annulment of a Commission decision possesses, and retains, a legally relevant interest in the outcome of the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 14 January 2021; it is no longer kept up to date. See also the timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C-450/19 Kilpailu- ja kuluttajavirasto — a national reference from Finland seeking clarification as to whether, amongst other things, Article 101 TFEU can be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances where a cartel participant has entered into a contract with a player outside the cartel, the competition infringement persists for the entire period during which contractual obligations arising from that contract are discharged or payments for the works are made (i.e. the moment when the last instalment for the works is paid, or at least up to the point when the works in question are completed)......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 26 September 2013; it is no longer maintained. Archived case hub — this record preserves the state as at the judgment dated 26 September 2013; it is no longer updated and not maintained......
CASE HUB See further, timeline. Case facts Outline: Appeal directed at the General Court’s judgment in Case T‑286/09 RENV (after remittal by the Court of Justice), which partially set aside the Commission’s decision of 13 May 2009 that found an infringement and imposed a fine on Intel Corporation for the alleged abuse of a dominant position through conditional rebates and loyalty payments ( Case AT.37990). Outcome On 18 January 2024, Advocate General Medina issued her opinion proposing that the Court of Justice dismiss the appeal. Advocate General Medina addressed only two of the Commission’s grounds of appeal, concerning purported errors by the General Court in assessing how the as‑efficient‑competitor ( AEC) test applied to the exclusivity rebates offered by Intel Corporation to Hewlett‑ Packard ( HP) and Lenovo Group Ltd ( Lenovo)......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment dated 11 April 2013; it is not being maintained. Case facts Outline: Mindo Srl lodged an appeal against the General Court’s finding that there was no need to rule on its request for partial annulment of the Commission decision of 20 October 2005 concerning Mindo Srl’s alleged participation in a purchasing cartel for Italian raw tobacco. The dispute centres on the exposure to, and payment of, fines by a debtor held jointly and severally liable, and on how applicants evidence an interest in bringing proceedings before the General Court. Parties Appellant: Mindo Srl ( Mindo) Other party: European Commission Mindo is an Italian undertaking, now in liquidation, engaged in the initial processing of raw tobacco, accounting for 11.28% of Italy’s raw tobacco output in 2001. The entity directly involved in the cartel was Dimon Italia Srl, a...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 24 September 2020; it is no longer being updated. For additional detail, see the timeline and related or relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C-516/19 NMI Technologietransfer—a national reference from Germany asking whether, among other issues, the GBER should be read as barring domestic rules that prevent a business from being treated as an SME where it is 90% owned by a trust (not involved in day-to-day management and largely comprising persons representing public bodies). Latest developments On 24 September 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its ruling, holding (amongst other points) that the GBER (namely Regulation No 651/2014) does not prevent an undertaking from being considered an SME where its capital-holding body is predominantly formed of members representing public bodies. Parties Applicant: NMI...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 24 November 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 445/1919 Viasat Broadcasting UK — a Danish reference seeking clarification on whether, amongst other points, a national court’s duty to impose ‘illegality interest’ on an aid beneficiary also extends to circumstances where the unlawful State aid was public service compensation later judged compatible with the internal market under Article 106(2) TFEU. Latest developments On 24 November 2020, the Court of Justice ruled that TV2/ Danmark A/s must pay ‘illegality interest’ on State aid it obtained from Denmark due to a failure to notify correctly. The subsequent European Commission finding that the aid was lawful, and the fact that TV2/ Danmark A/ S provided a service of general economic interest, did not alter this...
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
