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
This case hub is archived and captures the position as at the decision of 8 December 2016; it is no longer maintained. For further details, see the timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Two Spanish regional courts, the Audiencia Provincial de Zaragoza and the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Olot, made references to the Court of Justice seeking preliminary rulings under Article 267 TFEU. They requested clarification, among other points and insofar as competition law is concerned, in particular on whether national provisions requiring legal representatives’ remuneration to follow a minimum tariff or scale, set out by national rules and from which courts cannot depart even in exceptional circumstances, are compatible with Article 101 TFEU read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU. On 8 December 2016, the Court of Justice concluded that Article 101 TFEU, construed together with Article 4(3) TEU, must be...
CASE HUB (date of judgment—09/06/2016) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVED — this hub records the position as at the decision of 9 June 2016 and is no longer maintained Outline An appeal was lodged against the General Court’s judgment affirming the Commission’s decision of 3 October 2007, which found an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and imposed a €80.496m fine on Repsol for alleged involvement in a price-fixing and market/customer-sharing cartel in the Spanish bitumen sector between 1991 and 2002 (the ‘ Spanish bitumen cartel’). On 9 June 2016, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal in full, confirming that the Commission (and the General Court in endorsing that approach) had correctly applied the Leniency Notice concerning the need to supply ‘facts previously unknown to the Commission’ to obtain partial...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment dated 25 July 2018; it is no longer maintained. For further detail, see the timeline, commentary, and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline of Case C- 123/16, Orange Polska v Commission — an appeal before the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgment dismissing an action seeking annulment of the European Commission decision that found an abuse of dominance by refusing to supply rival operators with wholesale broadband internet access. Latest development On 25 July 2018, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in Orange Polska v Commission, concerning an appeal by the European Commission against the General Court’s ruling in Case T- 486/11, which had rejected actions by the appellant to annul the Commission’s infringement decision of 22 June 2011 finding an abuse of dominance for refusing to provide rival operators with...
CASE HUB (date of judgment—14/11/2017) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 14 November 2017; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeal lodged against the General Court’s judgment, which annulled only in part (as it concerned British Airways) the Commission decision of 9 November 2010. That decision found a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air transport, and imposed fines totalling €799.45m on 11 air carriers (including British Airways— BA) active in international air cargo services for their alleged participation in a global airfreight services cartel (' Air cargo cartel'). Unlike the other applicant airlines, for whom the Commission’s decision was annulled in its entirety (because of...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 22 May 2014; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline Appeals were lodged by Plásticos Españoles SA and its parent Armando Álvarez SA against the General Court’s judgments refusing their bids to annul the Commission’s decision of 30 November 2005, which levied a fine on Plásticos Españoles SA and Álvarez, on a joint and several basis, for actively taking part in a cartel arrangement concerning the supply of industrial plastic bags within the EEA (the ‘ Industrial bags cartel’). This case engages questions about attributing a subsidiary’s unlawful conduct to its parent undertaking or company and the criteria for proving a ‘single and continuous’...
CASE HUB (date of judgment—14/09/2016) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position as at the decision date of 14 September 2016; it is no longer maintained. Outline Trafilerie Meridionali and SLM/ Ori Martin appealed against General Court judgments that, substantially and on the merits, upheld the Commission’s decision of 30 June 2010 (as amended). That decision found infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and levied fines on Trafilerie Meridionali and SLM/ Ori Martin — subsequently reduced by the General Court — for their alleged involvement in a price‑fixing and market‑sharing cartel in the steel industry, known as the ‘ Prestressing steel cartel’. On 14 September 2016, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeals in full, thereby confirming the General Court’s rulings and the revised fines determined by those...
CASE HUB (date of judgment—14/09/2017) See further: timeline and related/similar cases Case facts ARCHIVED — this archived case hub records the position as at the decision of 14 September 2017 and is no longer maintained. Outline Appeals were filed against General Court judgments that upheld the Commission’s decision of 5 December 2012 finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53(1) EEA and imposing fines on LG and Philips, including a joint and several fine of €391.9m for their joint venture, LPD, arising from participation in two separate cartels for the supply of cathode ray tubes (the ‘ TV and computer monitor tubes cartels’). On 14 September 2017, the Court of Justice dismissed in full the appeals by LG and Philips, confirming in particular that the General Court was right to reject the plea that the Commission infringed the appellants’ rights of defence by not sending the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment date of 23 November 2023; it is no longer being updated. See the timeline for more... Case facts Outline An appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 238/20, which dismissed an action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision in SA.56812— Swedish loan guarantee scheme for airlines under the Temporary Framework for State aid measures supporting the economy during the coronavirus outbreak... Latest developments On 23 November 2023, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, rejecting all grounds advanced by Ryanair and dismissing the appeal... Parties Appellant: Ryanair DAC ( Ryanair) Respondent: The European Commission (the Commission) Background On 3 April 2020, Sweden notified the Commission of a SEK 5bn loan guarantee programme to assist airlines affected by the coronavirus outbreak under the Temporary Framework. The aid, granted as State guarantees on loans, is...
CASE HUB ( ARCHIVE 28/01/2016) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases ARCHIVED — this archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision of 28 January 2016; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline An appeal was lodged by Éditions Odile Jacob against the General Court’s ruling that upheld the Commission’s decision of 13 May 2011 endorsing Wendel Investissement as the buyer of divested assets, in line with commitments attached to the conditional clearance of 7 January 2004 authorising the merger by which Lagardère obtained sole control of Vivendi Universal Publishing’s assets ( Case COMP/ M.2978— Lagardère/ Natexis/ VUP). On 28 January 2016, the Court of Justice confirmed the General Court’s judgment, thereby holding that the Commission was right to approve, for a second time, Wendel’s purchase of Vivendi Universal Publishing’s assets—assets that Lagardère had been obliged to dispose of as a...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 14 September 2023; it is no longer updated. For more detail, see the timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court’s judgment of 9 June 2021, which upheld an action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 4 October 2018, finding that the absence of a deposit charge on specified drinks packaging sold by German border retailers to customers living in Denmark does not amount to State aid ( SA.44865)......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the state of play as at the judgment of 11 September 2014 and is not being maintained. For further material, see: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases... Case facts Outline Master Card and others appealed against the General Court’s ruling that dismissed their attempt to annul the Commission’s decision of 19 December 2007, which had found that the multilateral interchange fee ( MIF) within the Master Card payment scheme infringed Article 101 TFEU. On 11 September 2014, the Court of Justice rejected the appeal and the cross-appeals, thereby confirming the General Court’s judgment. The case centres on the legality of payment card MIFs, including whether the parties may justify these arrangements under the exemption conditions set out in Article 101(3) TFEU......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment handed down on 21 December 2023; it is no longer maintained. For further information, see the timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T‑93/18, which in part upheld an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision holding that the ISU’s rules, which imposed severe penalties on athletes for taking part in unauthorised ISU competitions, amounted to a breach of Article 101 TFEU. Latest development On 21 December 2023, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment and dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming that the ISU’s rules are unlawful. However, unlike the General Court, the Court of Justice allowed the cross‑appeal and accordingly set aside the General Court’s 2020 judgment in so far as it concerned the arbitration rules. Parties Applicant: International Skating Union ( ISU) Defendant: European...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED this archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 10 April 2014; it is no longer updated any more...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment of 5 September 2019 and is no longer maintained. See also timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Challenges to the General Court’s judgment in Case T‑673/15, which had directed the European Union to pay €654,523 to Guardian Europe due to the excessive duration of earlier proceedings before the General Court ( Case T‑82/08) in an appeal concerning the Commission’s flat glass cartel decision ( AT.39165). Latest development On 5 September 2019, the Court of Justice delivered its ruling, upholding the EU’s appeal and rejecting Guardian Europe’s appeal, with the result that the General Court’s damages award to Guardian Europe was removed. Parties Appellants: Guardian Europe Sàrl ( Guardian Europe) Other party: European Union Guardian Europe Sàrl ( Guardian Europe) forms part of the Guardian Group, active in the manufacture of flat glass and...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment of 28 October 2020; it is no longer updated. See further, the timeline here. Case facts Outline Case C‑608/19 INAIL—a reference from an Italian court requesting clarification on whether, amongst other matters, the ‘de minimis’ State aid rules enable an applicant for State aid to avoid breaching the permitted maximum, including by amending the project plan or by relinquishing earlier financial support already offered. Latest developments On 28 October 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, confirming that an undertaking in receipt of aid may seek a variation of the aid up to the moment aid is granted, or renounce earlier aid, so as to remain beneath the de minimis ceiling; aid is granted when the award decision is taken, not when any payment of the aid is made to the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub records the position as at the decision dated 10 November 2022; it is no longer being updated. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline A national reference from Romania asked whether competition fines should be set by reference to a company’s overall turnover even where a substantial share is spent purchasing services on clients’ behalf. Latest developments On 10 November 2022, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, replying in the negative: a competition authority must not rely solely on the turnover shown in an undertaking’s profit and loss account. Instead, it should assess the evidence produced by that undertaking demonstrating that the recorded turnover does not mirror its genuine economic situation and, accordingly, that a different figure which does reflect that reality ought to be treated as the relevant turnover......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 21 December 2023; it is no longer being maintained. See further, timeline, Case facts, Outline, Latest developments, timeline further Case facts Outline A national reference from Spain seeking clarification on, amongst other matters, the interpretation of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, with FIFA and UEFA statutes stipulating that their prior approval is needed before any third‑party can launch a new pan‑ European club tournament such as the European Super League ( ESL), together with related sanctions threatened by FIFA and UEFA. Latest developments On 21 December 2023, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub records the position as at the decision date of 23/11/2017; it is not being maintained. See also the timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline: National references were made by the Sofiyski rayonen sad ( Sofia District Court, Bulgaria) to the Court of Justice under Article 267 TFEU, seeking, amongst other issues and in so far as it concerns competition law, guidance on the consistency of Article 101 TFEU, read together with Article 4(3) TEU, with Bulgarian provisions stipulating that the fees of legal representatives must comply with a mandatory minimum tariff or scale. Outcome On 23 November 2017, the Court of Justice delivered its ruling, concluding, amongst other findings, that Article 101 TFEU, interpreted in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, must be understood as meaning that the domestic measures at issue are liable to limit...
The table below sets out completed national references to the Court of Justice on the construction of Articles 101, 102 and 106 TFEU from January 2013. For ongoing Court of Justice national reference cases, see Court of Justice—ongoing national references. 2026 Case C-286/24 Meliá Hotels International — Reference from Portuguese court Issues: Whether, amongst other points, national courts may gauge the plausibility of a damages claim, under Article 5(1) of Directive 2014/104/ EU, solely from a competition authority’s decision; and how that appraisal is influenced where the decision followed a settlement concerning a vertical infringement of EU competition law. See Application Latest developments: Judgment delivered—29/01/2026; the Court of Justice held that a claimant association must present a plausible, though not more likely than not, claim for compensation to gain access to...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this preserved case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 18 January 2024; it is no longer updated. See the timeline for more detail. Case facts Outline National reference from Romania requesting clarification as to whether, amongst other related matters, Article 101 TFEU should be interpreted to mean that Lithuanian notaries, when performing activities connected with certain clarifications adopted by the Chamber of Notaries, are undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU......
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
