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 archive records the position as at the judgment dated 17 October 2019; it is no longer being maintained. See further Case facts Appeals were lodged against the General Court’s judgment in Case T‑274/15, which had declared as inadmissible an action seeking to annul two Commission measures of 12 March 2015 and 8 May 2015. The first addressed how Commission officials conducted dawn inspections on 24 March 2015 in AT.40244 ( Bioethanol). The second also concerned the Commission’s letter refusing the applicants’ request to suspend any investigative steps concerning them in AT.40054 ( Oil and Biofuel Markets) and AT.40244 ( Bioethanol). Outline Appeals targeted the inadmissibility finding and the two underlying decisions of 12 March and 8 May 2015. Latest development On 17 October 2019, the Court of Justice handed down its ruling dismissing the appeal in its entirety. In particular, it found that EU rules...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision of 20 January 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline A reference for a preliminary ruling was made by the Italian Consiglio di Stato to the Court of Justice under Article 267 TFEU, aiming to determine the correct approach to the treatment of leniency applications where an undertaking files with both a national competition authority ( NCA) and the European Commission—clarifying, amongst other matters, whether, on a proper construction of Article 101 TFEU, Article 4(3) TEU and Article 11 of Regulation No 1/2003, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, it follows that an NCA may not depart from instruments developed and adopted within the European Competition Network ( ECN) and, in particular, from the ECN’s Model Leniency...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 7 July 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and related/similar cases Case facts Outline National reference by the French Cour d’appel de Paris to the Court of Justice seeking a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU on whether, under Article 101 TFEU, Genentech could be required to pay royalties for licensed technology where the relevant patent had been revoked. On 7 July 2016, the Court of Justice concluded that Article 101 TFEU does not bar a royalty obligation, even when the licensee’s conduct would not constitute infringement of the patented technology, provided the licensee retained the unfettered ability to terminate the licence on reasonable notice... Latest development On 7 July 2016, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment, holding that Article 101 TFEU does not prevent an...
CASE HUB (date of judgment—18/06/2015) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 18 June 2015; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline An appeal was brought by Deutsche Bahn alongside several group subsidiaries challenging the General Court judgment that had upheld the Commission’s decision of 14 March 2011 authorising dawn raids at Deutsche Bahn premises on 29 March 2011, and later decisions sanctioning additional inspections, after allegations that Deutsche Bahn (and its subsidiaries) had abused a dominant position. On 18 June 2015, the Court of Justice set aside the General Court’s ruling to the extent that it rejected Deutsche Bahn’s plea alleging a violation of the rights of defence in light of irregularities tainting the conduct of the first inspection, and it annulled the contested Commission decisions. The case...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This case hub is archived and captures the status as at the judgment of 9 November 2023; it is no longer updated. See also the timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T-425/18, which partially rejected an action to annul the Commission’s decision of 24 April 2018 imposing a €124.5m fine on Altice Europe for putting into effect its acquisition of PT Portugal before notifying and obtaining clearance from the European Commission under the EU Merger Regulation ( EUMR). Outcome On 9 November 2023, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment and largely dismissed the appeal. It found no error by the General Court: in concluding that the Commission was entitled to impose a fine for breaches of Articles 4(1) and 7(1) EUMR; and in determining that veto rights contained in the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the status as at the judgment dated 19 December 2013; it is no longer being maintained...
2024 The tables below set out finalised Court of Justice appeals concerning claims for the non-contractual liability of EU institutions arising from competition matters. For questions referred by national courts, see Court of Justice—ongoing national references. For concluded Court of Justice appeals, consult Court of Justice Article 101 TFEU appeals—closed cases tracker, Court of Justice Article 102 TFEU appeals—closed cases tracker and Court of Justice EUMR appeals—closed cases tracker. Note: this tracker excludes State aid. For State aid appeals, see General Court State aid appeals—ongoing cases tracker and Court of Justice State aid appeals—ongoing cases tracker... Case C-221/22 P Commission v Deutsche Telekom Appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T-610/19, which partly upheld a claim seeking repayment from the Commission for an overpaid fine arising from Slovak Telekom (and Deutsche...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 11 July 2024; it is not being updated. For additional detail, consult the timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline A preliminary reference from Spain requesting guidance, among other matters, on the validity of serving proceedings in a damages action linked to the trucks cartel. Latest developments On 11 July 2024, the Court of Justice delivered its ruling, stating that Article 1(1) of Regulation 1393/2007 must be read as preventing legal documents addressed to a parent company based in one Member State from being lawfully served on that company’s subsidiary located in another Member State, even where the parent and subsidiary constitute a single economic entity. Articles 101 TFEU and 47 of the Charter do not change that conclusion. Parties Applicant: AB Volvo (hereafter, Volvo) Respondent: Transsaqui S. L. Market:...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 18 March 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline An appeal was brought before the Court of Justice against the General Court’s ruling in Case T-433/16, which in part annulled an action seeking to set aside the Commission’s decision concerning the steel abrasives cartel ( AT.39792). Latest development On 18 March 2021, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, concurring with Advocate General Hogan, and partially allowed the appeal because the General Court infringed the principle of equal treatment when fixing the penalty on Pometon Sp A. The Court of Justice lowered the fine to €2.6m. Parties Appellant: Pometon Sp A ( Pometon) Defendant: European Commission Market(s) Steel abrasives. These are loose steel granules used to cleanse or improve metal surfaces across the steel,...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment of 4 December 2014 and is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline A reference from the Gerechtshof Den Haag ( Hague District Court) to the Court of Justice under Article 267 TFEU sought clarification on whether a clause in a collective labour agreement that sets a minimum rate — covering not only employees but also self‑employed individuals carrying out the same work on the basis of a professional services contract — falls outside Article 101 TFEU, or otherwise qualifies for exemption from the Article 101(1) TFEU prohibition, by virtue of being part of a collective labour agreement. On 4 December 2014, the Court of Justice ruled that such a provision will fall outside the scope of Article 101(1) TFEU only where the...
CASE HUB (date of judgment—26/07/2017) See further: timeline and related/similar cases Case facts ARCHIVED — this archived entry records the position as at the decision dated 27 July 2017; it is no longer updated. Outline Appeal lodged against the General Court’s judgment rejecting AGC’s action to annul the Commission decision of 6 August 2012, by which the Hearing Officer denied AGC’s bids for confidential handling of certain material (supplied by Degussa during its leniency application) earmarked for inclusion in the public version of the ‘ Car glass cartel’ decision. On 26 July 2017, the Court of Justice held that the General Court—while mistaken as to the scope of the Hearing Officer’s powers—nonetheless explained, to the requisite legal standard, the grounds on which it considered the Commission justified in releasing the information concerned. The case centres on the Commission’s process and latitude in assessing...
The tables below set out finalised competition Court of Justice appeal matters under Article 102 TFEU. For ongoing Court of Justice appeals, see Court of Justice appeals—ongoing cases tracker. For concluded General Court appeals connected to Article 102 TFEU, see General Court Article 102 TFEU appeals—closed cases tracker. 2024 Case C- 240/22 P Commission v Intel Corporation Appeal against the General Court’s ruling in Case T- 286/09 RENV, which partly allowed an appeal against an earlier General Court judgment upholding the Commission’s Intel— AT.37990 decision. See Application Judgment delivered—23/10/2024; appeal dismissed Opinion delivered—18/01/2024; AG Medina advised that the Court of Justice dismiss the appeal Lodged—05/04/2022 Case C- 255/22 P Orlen v Commission Appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 616/18 Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission, which rejected an appeal challenging the Commission’s acceptance of binding commitments from Gazprom under Article 9 of...
The tables below set out concluded competition Court of Justice appeal cases relating to Article 101 TFEU. For current Court of Justice appeals, see Court of Justice appeals—ongoing cases tracker. For concluded General Court appeals under Article 101 TFEU, see General Court Article 101 TFEU appeals—closed cases tracker. 2025 Case Issues Latest development Case C- 367/22 P Air Canada v Commission Appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 326/17, which upheld the Commission’s readopted Air Freight ( AT.39258) decision, while some fines were reduced. See Application Judgment—26/02/2026; appeal wholly dismissed Opinion—05/09/2024; AG Rantos proposed dismissal Hearing—10/04/2024 Lodged—07/06/2022 Case C- 369/22 P Air France v Commission Appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 338/18, upholding the Commission’s readopted Air Freight ( AT.39258) decision, with certain fines reduced. See Application ...
CASE HUB (date of judgment—21/09/2017) See further: timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVED — this case hub, retained for record, reflects the position at the date of the decision of 21 September 2017; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeals lodged against judgments of the General Court that, for the most part, upheld the Commission’s re‑adopted decision of 30 September 2009 (as amended by a later decision of 8 December 2009) in proceedings previously pursued under Article 65 of the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty ( ECSC). That decision found infringements and imposed overall fines of €85m (revised to €83.25m under the re‑adopted decision) on several steel‑making companies for their alleged participation in a price‑fixing cartel concerning the supply of concrete bars in Italy between 1989 and 2000 (‘ Reinforcing bars cartel’)......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment date of 5 December 2023; it is no longer being updated. See the timeline for more details. Case facts Outline Appeals contesting the General Court’s judgment in Case T-516/18, which rejected an action seeking to annul the Commission’s decision of 20 June 2018. That decision concluded Luxembourg had provided unlawful State aid to Engie (formerly GDF Suez) through improper tax advantages ( SA.44888). Latest developments On 5 December 2023, the Court of Justice delivered its ruling, allowing the appeal and annulling the Commission’s decision of 20 June 2018......
CASE HUB (date of judgments—10/03/2016) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVED — this hub is archived and captures the position as at the 10 March 2016 decision date; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeals were lodged against the General Court’s judgments which, for the most part, endorsed the Commission decisions of 30 March 2011 directing the addressees (companies involved in the supply of cement and related products) to provide information in the context of a then‑ongoing investigation into suspected anti‑competitive practices in European‑wide markets for cement and related products. On 31 July 2015, the Commission closed its investigation, confirming that the evidence gathered was not sufficiently conclusive to substantiate its initial concerns. On 10 March 2016, the Court of Justice set aside the General Court’s judgments and annulled the impugned decisions. These cases concern, amongst other matters, questions about the proper and lawful...
CASE HUB See further, timeline. Case facts Outline A preliminary reference from Portugal asks whether, among other points, Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU bars the seizure of corporate records generated by e‑mail exchanges between managers and staff of undertakings during an inquiry under Article 101 TFEU. The question concerns materials created by workplace correspondence and their treatment during competition enquiries at EU level. Latest developments On 20 June 2024, Advocate General Medina delivered an opinion advising that Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union does not bar national rules under which, during an inspection at an undertaking’s premises as part of a probe into a breach of Article 101 or 102 TFEU, the national competition authority may look for and take emails whose content concerns the scope of the inspection without prior judicial...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment of 26 September 2018 and is no longer maintained. NOTE—case sent back to the General Court ( Case T‑758/14 RENV). See also: timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Infineon appealed against the General Court’s ruling that upheld the Commission’s decision of 3 September 2014 ( Case AT.39226), which found a breach of Article 101 TFEU and imposed fines on Infineon for its alleged involvement in a cartel concerning the supply of smart card chips. Outcome On 26 September 2018, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, partially allowing the appeal, setting aside the General Court’s judgment and remitting the case to the General Court. It held that the General Court’s judgment in Case T‑758/14 was affected by an error of law regarding the General Court’s exercise of its unlimited...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment of 16 January 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further the timeline, commentary and related cases for more information. Case facts Outline Appeal to the Court of Justice by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court, which annulled the Commission’s decision to prohibit UPS’s proposed acquisition of TNT. Latest development On 16 January 2019, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, rejecting the Commission’s appeal in its entirety. Parties Applicant: United Parcel Service Inc ( UPS) Defendant: European Commission UPS, a US-based company, and TNT Express NV ( TNT), a Netherlands-based company, both offer small package delivery services through integrated air and ground networks, constituting an ‘integrated’ service. Within the EEA, UPS and TNT are active on the international express small package delivery...
CASE HUB ( NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 538/18) ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 20 June 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court of the European Commission’s decision ordering inspections under Article 20 of Regulation 1/2003 in relation to the so‑called Falcon investigation ( AT.40156). Latest development On 20 June 2018, the General Court gave its judgment, partly annulling the Commission’s investigation so far as it concerned routes other than between Prague and Ostrava and alleged breaches of Article 102 TFEU other than predatory pricing; the remainder of the decision (concerning alleged predatory pricing on the route between Prague and Ostrava) was upheld. In particular, the General Court reaffirmed the principle that a decision ordering an...
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
