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 page captures the position as at the judgment of 11 September 2014 and is no longer updated. For more, see: timeline, commentary, and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Groupement des Cartes Bancaires ( CB) appealed the General Court’s judgment, which had upheld the Commission’s decision of 10 October 2007. That decision found that CB’s fees and tariffs curtailed competition by deterring new entrants from issuing payment cards in France. CB asked the Court to annul the General Court’s ruling, arguing that the Commission misapplied the legal notion of a restriction of competition ‘by object’. On 11 September 2014, the Court of Justice allowed CB’s appeal and quashed the General Court’s judgment, holding that the latter could not legitimately determine that CB’s pricing measures had, in themselves, the object of restricting competition. The judgment is significant for its...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 21 April 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Ecolab Inc brought an appeal against the Competition and Markets Authority’s decision of 7 October, which barred Ecolab’s completed takeover of The Holchem Group Limited and required the full divestment of The Holchem Group Limited (i.e. to unwind the deal). Latest development On 21 April 2020, the CAT handed down its judgment, dismissing the appeal in its entirety. Parties Ecolab Inc. ( Ecolab), headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, is a United States-based global supplier of water, hygiene and energy technologies and services to the food, energy, healthcare, industrial and hospitality sectors. Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA) Background The transaction On 30 November 2018, Ecolab completed the acquisition of Holchem. The transaction was announced on 5...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment of 19 April 2021; it is no longer being maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Roland ( U. K.) Limited and Roland Corporation appealed against a penalty arising from the Competition and Markets Authority’s decision of 29 June 2020, which found they had breached the Chapter I prohibition of the Competition Act 1998 and/or Article 101 TFEU. The infringement concerned online resale price maintenance for electronic drumkits and associated products with a single UK distributor during 7 January 2011 to 17 April 2018 (case number 50565–5). The CMA imposed a £4m fine on Roland ( U. K.) Limited. Latest development On 19 April 2021, the CAT handed down its judgment, dismissing the appeal in full. The CAT concluded that: resale price maintenance is a serious ‘by object’ breach of the...
Advanz Pharma Corp. Limited & Others v CMA; Ciniven Capital Management ( V) General Partner Limited & Others v CMA; Lexon ( UK) Limited & Another v CMA; Alliance Pharmaceuticals Limited & Another v CMA ( Prochlorpezarine tablets) [ Archived] CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 23 May 2024; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline The appeals were brought by Advanz Pharma Corp. Limited, Ciniven Capital Management ( V) General Partner Limited, Lexon ( UK) Limited, and Alliance Pharmaceuticals Limited & Another v CMA, contesting the CMA’s 2 February 2022 decision arising from its Chapter I investigation into suspected anti‑competitive agreements in relation to the supply of 3mg buccal tablets in the UK, which imposed fines totalling over £35m. Latest...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 18/01/2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary Case facts Outline J Sainsbury plc and Asda Group Limited appealed two decisions about the procedural timetable for their proposed merger with each other, arising during the CMA’s review. The decisions concerned: the deadlines by which the parties had to respond to a range of working papers; the timing set for the parties’ main party hearing. Parties J Sainsbury plc ( Sainsbury’s) and Asda Group Limited ( Asda). Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA). Background On 12 December 2018, Sainsbury’s and Asda made an application to the Competition Appeal Tribunal ( CAT) seeking judicial review of the CMA’s timetable and procedure within its investigation into the proposed merger between the parties (see further, J Sainsbury/ Asda). On 19...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment dated 13 November 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, imeline and commentary. Case facts Outline An appeal by Facebook against the CMA’s refusal to grant derogations from an IEO imposed in relation to Facebook’s completed acquisition of Giphy via a stock conversion undertaken by its wholly-owned subsidiary, Tabby Acquisition. Latest development On 13 November 2020, the CAT handed down its judgment, dismissing the appeal in full. Parties Applicant Facebook, Inc., a US-based company, is a social media conglomerate. Facebook UK Limited delivers sales support, marketing services and engineering support to the Facebook group and acts as a reseller of advertising services to larger UK customers (together, Facebook). Respondent Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA). Other parties Giphy Inc ( Giphy), a UK-based company, operates an online database and search engine primarily enabling users to...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 16/08/2019; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline Lebedev Holdings Limited brought an appeal seeking a review of the Public Interest Intervention Notice ( PIIN) that the Secretary of State for DCMS issued on 27 June 2019 under section 42(2) of the Enterprise Act 2002... Parties Lebedev Holdings Limited ( LHL): LHL is a holding entity and the majority owner of Evening Standard Limited, which, amongst other activities, produces the Evening Standard printed newspaper and operates the Evening Standard news website. Independent Digital News and Media Limited ( IDMN): IDMN is a digital consumer media company providing news and entertainment via its websites indpendent.co.uk and indy100, as well as through its mobile application, The Independent Digital Edition. Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 8 July 2020; it is no longer maintained. See also: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Referred back to the General Court following the Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C-99/17 P, Infineon Technologies v Commission (smart card chip cartel). That appeal contested the General Court’s prior judgment affirming the Commission’s decision of 3 September 2014 ( Case AT.39226), which identified an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and imposed fines on Infineon for its alleged involvement in a cartel relating to the supply of smart card chips. Outcome On 8 July 2020, the General Court handed down its judgment, partially upholding Infineon’s appeal. Parties Applicant: Infineon Technologies AG ( Infineon) Defendant: European Commission Infineon, based in Germany, is a semiconductor manufacturer active in the supply of smart card...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment date of 29 April 2015; it is not maintained. See: timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline An appeal was lodged before the General Court seeking to set aside Commission correspondence that demanded from the applicants sums mirroring fines imposed by the Commission in its decision of 31 May 2006 (concerning Total and Elf’s alleged involvement in the ‘ Acrylic glass’ cartel), and arising in the framework of steps later taken by the Commission to implement General Court judgments which lowered the penalty levied on the applicants’ subsidiaries while rejecting the applicants’ action. On 29 April 2015, the General Court quashed the disputed letters, but solely to the extent that the Commission requires Elf to pay default interest totalling €31.31m (for which Total is jointly and severally...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 8 May 2019 and is no longer updated. For further details, see timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline An appeal was lodged against the Commission’s refusal to repay a fine linked to its decisions in COMP/37.956 concerning the reinforcing bars cartel. Outcome On 8 May 2019, the General Court rejected the appeal in full. It determined that the Commission’s 2009 re-adopted decision remained effective for Lucchini because it had not itself appealed the underlying decision annulled by the Court of Justice. As a result, Lucchini was not entitled to recover the cartel fine it had paid for participation in the reinforcing bars cartel. Parties Appellant: Lucchini Sp A ( Lucchini) European Commission Lucchini Sp A manufactures steel products, producing items including steel wire, rods, bars and rail products, as well as...
Case C- 611/18 Pirelli & C. v Commission (power cables cartel) [ Archived] CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 28 October 2020; it is no longer updated. See also: timeline and relevant/similar cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 611/18 Pirelli & C. v Commission—an appeal before the Court of Justice challenging the General Court’s ruling in Case T- 455/14, which had rejected an action to annul the Commission’s decision concerning the high‑voltage power cables cartel ( AT.39610). Outcome On 12 July 2018, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, dismissing the appeal in full. Parties Appellant: Pirelli & C. Sp A (referred to as Pirelli) Defendant: European Commission (referred to as the Commission) Pirelli’s corporate structure Pirelli (previously Pirelli Sp A) is headquartered in Italy. From 18 February 1999 to 28 July 2005, it was the parent of Pirelli Cavi e...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 12 June 2014; it is no longer being updated. Case facts Outline Deltafina lodged an appeal against the General Court’s judgment that confirmed the Commission’s decision of 20 October 2005 regarding Deltafina Sp A’s involvement in a buyer cartel for Italian raw tobacco. The matter centres on the Commission’s approach to leniency, under which immunity is granted only where cooperation is “full, continuous and expeditious”, as set out in the Leniency Notice on immunity or reductions from fines. This was the first instance in which the Commission, having granted “conditional immunity” at the outset of the administrative procedure under a leniency programme, declined to award “final immunity” at the close of the administrative procedure to the undertaking that first disclosed the cartel’s...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment dated 4 June 2020 and is no longer being maintained. For more detail, see: timeline, relevant/related cases and commentary. Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court’s ruling in Joined Cases T‑554/15 and T‑555/15, which dismissed an action to annul two Commission decisions imposing the interim suspension of new Hungarian tax schemes (concerning health in the tobacco sector and food chains) pending completion of in‑depth investigations ( Cases SA.41187 and SA.40018). Latest developments On 4 July 2020, the Court of Justice allowed the appeal, set aside the General Court’s judgment and annulled the Suspension Decisions. Specifically, the Court of Justice held that the Suspension Decisions were undermined by an inadequate statement of reasons and breached Article 296 TFEU. Parties Appellant: Hungary Respondent: European Commission (the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This case hub, now archived, represents the position as at the decision dated 22 January 2013 and is no longer actively updated...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub shows the status as at the decision date of 14 March 2013; it is no longer being maintained. Case facts Relevant/related cases Case C‑286/11 P Commission v Tomkins ( Copper fittings cartel) Case C-287/11 Commission v Aalberts Industries and others ( Copper fittings cartel) Case T-386/06 Pegler v Commission Timeline Date Event Judgment Judgment: Case C-276/11 P Viega v Commission, judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 March 2013... Date Event...
Case hub archived This archived case hub records the position as at the decision of 6 December 2017 and is no longer updated. Further information: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline A reference was made by the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main ( Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt) to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU. The request sought clarification, under Article 101 TFEU, on the lawfulness of prohibitions on sales via online marketplaces within a selective distribution framework. Specifically, the German court asked whether a ‘qualitative’ selective distribution system can validly impose online sales limitations aimed at preserving a luxury brand’s image. The question emerged from proceedings in Germany between Coty Deutschland Gmb H and Parfümerie Akzente Gmb H, in which Coty Germany brought an action to prevent Akzente from selling Coty Germany products through the online platform...
CASE HUB (date of judgment—22/10/2015) ( ARCHIVE 22/10/2015) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 22 October 2015; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline AC‑ Treuhand, a consultancy, appealed against the General Court’s judgment which upheld the Commission’s 11 November 2009 decision finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA and imposing a €348,000 fine on AC‑ Treuhand for its alleged role as a facilitator of a Europe‑wide cartel concerning the supply of tin and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers (the “ Heat stabilisers cartel”). On 22 October, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal and affirmed the General Court’s judgment and, in consequence, confirmed the underlying Commission infringement decision in so far as it related to AC‑ Treuhand. The case centres on the potential liability under Article 101 TFEU of...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub records the position as at the decision of 23 January 2018 and is no longer updated. For further details see: timeline, commentary, and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline A national reference was made by the Consiglio di Stato ( Italian Council of State) to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, seeking guidance on how the regulatory regime for placing medicinal products on the market intersects with EU competition law. In particular, the Court of Justice was asked to clarify to what degree, and on which grounds, legal uncertainty surrounding the lawfulness of prescribing and marketing a medicine aimed at ‘off-label’ use, and the scientific risks tied to such use, should be taken into account when applying Article 101 TFEU......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This case hub is archived and captures the position as at the judgment dated 30 June 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline An appeal was lodged with the General Court seeking to annul the Commission’s decision of 10 October 2007 / January 2013, which found an infringement of Article 81 EC (now Article 101 TFEU) on the grounds that a fee and tariff scheme introduced by Groupement des Cartes Bancaires ( CB) curtailed competition by impeding new entrants from issuing payment cards in France. On 30 June 2016, the General Court largely rejected CB’s action, holding that the Commission was right to find that the measures in question had restrictive effects on competition. The case is notable for its examination of the ‘by object’ versus ‘by effect’ distinction in EU competition...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the decision date of 21 June 2017 and is no longer updated. For more detail, see the timeline and commentary. Case facts European Commission Article 101 TFEU enquiry into a cartel in the aftermarket sector for the provision of replacement car lighting system components for passenger and commercial vehicles ( AT.40013). The arrangement concerned co-ordinating prices and other trading terms. Latest development On 21 June 2017, the Commission adopted a decision finding an infringement after three manufacturers concluded settlements with the Commission and admitted their participation in the cartel. Penalties totalling €26.7m were imposed......
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
