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 of 9 June 2021 and is no longer updated. For further details, see the timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline An action for annulment was lodged before the General Court against the European Commission’s decision of 26 April 2020 approving a German State-backed loan in favour of Condor, a German charter airline, to compensate for damage arising from the Covid-19 outbreak ( SA.56867). Latest developments On 9 June 2021, the General Court upheld the appeal and annulled the Commission’s decision, concluding that the statement of reasons was inadequate. In light of the economic and social conditions brought about by the Covid-19 pandemic, the Court stayed the annulment pending the Commission’s adoption of a new...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 2 September 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Case C‑57/19 Commission v Tempus Energy and Tempus Energy Technology-an appeal against the General Court’s ruling in Case T‑793/14, which had upheld an action to annul the Commission’s decision ( SA.35980) finding that a UK capacity market aid scheme was compatible with EU State aid rules. Latest development On 2 September 2021, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, setting aside the General Court’s decision and dismissing Tempus’s original appeal. Parties Appellant: European Commission (the Commission) Defendant: Tempus Energy Ltd, Tempus Energy Technology Ltd (hereafter, Tempus Energy) Market(s) The electricity capacity market. Background On 23 June 2014, the UK notified the Commission seeking State aid clearance for a 10‑year period to support capacity providers in the electricity market in Great Britain (the...
CASE HUB NOTE-appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C-492/21 ARCHIVED -this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 2 June 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline An application for annulment before the General Court contesting the European Commission’s decision of 4 December 2017, which approved compensation granted by Italy to public hospitals in the Lazio Region ( Case SA.39913). Latest developments On 2 June 2021, the General Court delivered its judgment and dismissed the appeal in full. In particular, it held that: the allegation that the Commission’s decision was tainted by an inadequate statement of reasons could not be upheld; and the Commission did not err in determining that Italian healthcare services were not provided by an undertaking and, consequently, the remuneration of public healthcare services did not involve state aid within...
CASE HUB NOTE-appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 466/21 ARCHIVED - this archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment of 19 May 2021 and is no longer being updated. See further, timeline Case facts Outline Action for annulment before the General Court against the European Commission’s decision of 31 July 2017, which concluded that Germany’s public support to Frankfurt- Hahn airport did not amount to unlawful State aid ( Case SA.45765) Latest developments On 19 May 2021, the General Court delivered its judgment, partially upholding the appeal and, consequently, setting aside the Commission’s 2017 decision Parties Applicants: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (hereafter, Deutsche Lufthansa) Defendant: European Commission (the Commission) Background Frankfurt- Hahn is a regional airport in the Land of Rhineland- Palatinate, about 120 km west of Frankfurt/ Main. In 2016, it handled roughly 2.6 million passengers and 72,600 tonnes of freight. The...
CASE HUB NOTE-appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 441/21 ARCHIVED -this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgments of 19 May 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and relevant/related cases Case facts This hub is retained for reference only and mirrors the status as at the General Court’s judgments of 19 May 2021. It is not updated. For more detail, consult the timeline, commentary and related matters. Outline Actions for annulment were brought by Ryanair against European Commission decisions dated 10 June 2020, 13 July 2020 and 31 July 2020, which cleared three State aid measures in Portugal, the Netherlands and Spain to assist airlines during the Covid-19 crisis ( Cases SA.57369, SA.57659 and SA.57116). The proceedings are registered as Cases T-465/20 Ryanair v Commission, T-628/20 Ryanair v Commission and T-642/20 Ryanair v...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment date of 12 May 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Proceedings were brought by the Commission against Greece for non-compliance with the Commission decision of 7 December 2011, which concluded that compensation amounting to €425m, paid by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation ( ELGA) to farmers for losses sustained in 2008 due to adverse weather, constituted unlawful State aid ( SA.28864). Latest developments On 12 May 2021, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, holding that Greece, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all measures necessary to recover the unlawful aid, and by failing to notify the Commission within that period of the steps taken to comply with the decision, breached its obligations under Article 288 TFEU and the relevant...
CASE HUB NOTE-appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C- 451/21 C- 454/21 ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment of 12 May 2021 and is no longer being updated. See the timeline for further details. Case facts Outline Joined Cases T- 516/18 Luxembourg v Commission and T- 525/18 Engie Global LNG Holdings and Others-applications for annulment before the General Court of the European Commission’s decision of 20 June 2018, which concluded that Luxembourg had provided unlawful State aid to Engie (formerly GDF Suez) through undue tax advantages ( SA.44888). Latest development On 12 May 2021, the General Court issued its ruling, dismissing the actions in their entirety. It determined that the Commission was entitled to: (i) prioritise the economic reality of the intra-group structure over a purely formal approach; and (ii) find that a selective advantage existed, giving rise to State aid, due to...
CASE HUB NOTE-appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 457/21 ARCHIVED -this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 12 May 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Joined Cases T- 816/17 Luxemburg v Commission and T- 318/18 Amazon EU and Amazon.com v Commission-applications seeking annulment before the General Court of the European Commission’s decision of 4 October 2017 concluding that Luxembourg granted unlawful State aid to Amazon through selective tax treatment ( SA.38944) Latest development On 12 May 2021, the General Court delivered its judgment, allowing the appeal and therefore annulling the Commission’s decision. Among other findings, the Court held that the Commission had not shown, to the requisite legal standard, that a European subsidiary of the Amazon group benefited from an undue reduction of its tax...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This case hub is archived and captures the position as at the judgment dated 11 November 2021; it is no longer updated. For further details, see the timeline. Case facts Outline Case C‑819/19 Stichting Cartel Compensation and Others - a preliminary reference from the Netherlands asking, among other matters, whether national courts are empowered to apply Article 101 TFEU (or at least Article 53 EEA) to agreements or concerted practices by air carriers relating to freight services on flights operated on specified dates (namely before 01/05/2004, 19/05/2005 or 01/06/2002), as well as for the period during which the transitional regime under Articles 104 and 105 TFEU applied. Latest developments On 11 November 2021, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, agreeing with Advocate General Bobek that a party allegedly harmed by a cartel between air carriers for airfreight services on routes between airports within the EU...
CASE HUB NOTE-appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 442/21 ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 5 May 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline... Case facts Outline An action for annulment was brought before the General Court against the European Commission’s decision of 28 May 2018, which found that Denmark’s compensation to Post Danmark for fulfilling its public postal service duty during 2017–2019 complied with the State aid rules ( SA.47707)... Latest developments On 5 May 2021, the General Court delivered its judgment, partially upholding the appeal by concluding that the VAT exemption and the capital increase of 23 February 2017 did not amount to State aid... Parties Applicants: ITD Danske Fragtmænd ( ITD) Danske Fragtmænd A/ S ( DF) Defendant: European Commission ( Commission) ITD is a trade association under Danish law whose members are...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED -this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 29 April 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Proceedings were initiated by the Commission against Spain, alleging that Spain did not, within the deadline set by the Commission, implement measures to recover aid found incompatible with the internal market. The unlawful support concerned State aid granted to Telecom Castilla- La Mancha SA. Latest development On 29 April 2021, the Court of Justice delivered its ruling, upholding the Commission’s action for failure to fulfil obligations, and holding that, upon expiry of the Commission’s time‑limit, Spain had not adopted the steps required to recover the unlawful aid. The Court of Justice also determined that Spain failed to notify the Commission, within the prescribed period after the Commission’s decision was notified, of the measures...
ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment dated 02 September 2021; it is no longer updated... CASE HUB See further, timeline... Case facts Outline Cases C‑647/19 Ja zum Nürburgring v Commission and C‑665/19 Ne Xovation v Commission - appeals against the General Court’s judgments in Cases T‑353/15 and T‑373/15, which dismissed, partly as inadmissible and otherwise as unfounded, actions seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision on aid measures granted by Germany between 2002–2012 for the Nürburgring race track ( SA.31550)... Latest development On 2 September 2021, the Court of Justice delivered its judgments, partially upholding the appeals. It found, in particular, that the Commission erred when assessing whether Deutsche Bank had secured the financing of Capricorn’s bid... Parties Appellants: Ja zum Nürburgring ( JZN) Ne Xovation, Inc ( Ne Xovation) Defendant: European Commission (the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the decision date of 22 November 2024; it is no longer being maintained. For more, see timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU and/or Article 102 TFEU investigation into Apple Inc’s App Store policies and their effect on competition in music streaming and e-books/audiobooks ( AT.40652). Latest development On 22 November 2024, the Commission closed its investigation after the complaint brought against Apple by an e-book and audiobook distributor was withdrawn. Parties Apple Inc ( Apple); Apple is a US-based company. It designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and related personal computing and mobile communication devices, together with a variety of associated software and services......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED -this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 29 April 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Case C‑847/19, Achemos Grupė and Achema v Commission - an appeal against the General Court’s ruling in Case T‑417/16, which rejected an application to annul the European Commission’s decision of 20 November 2013. That decision found that aid for constructing the Lithuanian LNG Terminal at the Klaipéda Seaport complied with State aid rules ( SA.36740). Latest developments On 29 April 2021, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, dismissing the appeal in its entirety. Parties Applicants: Achemos Grupé UAB ( Vilnius, Lithuania) Achema AB ( Jonava, Lithuania) (together, the Applicants) Defendant: European Commission Background Background to the dispute On 18 January 2007, the Lithuanian Parliament endorsed the 2008–2012 national energy strategy, flagging the need to explore establishing a liquefied natural gas terminal at the Klaipéda Seaport (the LNG...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED -this archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 29 April 2021; it is no longer being maintained. See the timeline for further details. Case facts Outline Case C-890/19 Fortischem v Commission-an appeal challenging the General Court’s ruling in Case T-121/15, which rejected a bid to annul the Commission’s decision of 15 October 2014. That decision concluded, amongst other findings, that a Slovak chemical undertaking, Novácké chemické závody ( NCHZ)- Fortischem’s predecessor-had benefitted from unlawful State aid during its bankruptcy proceedings ( Case SA.33797). Latest developments On 29 April 2021, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, dismissing the appeal in full and thereby confirming the Commission’s 2014 decision. Parties Applicants: Fortischem a.s. ( Fortischem) Defendant: European Commission Background On 22 July 2009, the Commission imposed a €19.6m fine on Novácké chemické závody, a.s. v konkurze ( NCHZ) for its role in a cartel in the...
1. What is the applicable legislation? Areas subject to the screening requirement are outlined in: the Law on the Protection of Objects Important for Ensuring the National Security of the Republic of Lithuania (the Law on National Security) Resolution of the Government No. 556 ( Resolution 556), identifying the categories of economic activity regarded as strategically significant for national security Resolution of the Government No. 746 ( Resolution 746), setting out the catalogue of protection zones for equipment and property important for national security (the Protection zone(s)) Resolution of the Government No. 1540 ( Resolution 1540), prescribing the procedure for preliminary screening EU Regulation 2019/452 (the EU FDI Screening Regulation), laying down the framework for the screening of FDI into the European Union (the EU) 2. Which government or other body (or bodies) reviews foreign...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This case hub reflects the position as at the decision of 20 April 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline: a European Commission investigation under Article 101 TFEU into a cartel affecting cross‑border rail freight transport services using blocktrains ( AT.40330). Latest development On 20 April 2021, the Commission adopted its infringement decision after the three companies settled with it and admitted their role in the cartel. Aggregate fines of €48.59m were imposed. The penalties per company were: ÖBB - no fine (immunity granted) DB - €48,324,000 (reflecting a 45% leniency reduction and a 10% settlement discount) ( NB: DB’s fine was uplifted by 50% as it had previously been held liable in Cargo ‘blocktrains’ ( AT.40098)) SNCB - €270,000 (including a 30% reduction)......
1. What is the applicable legislation? There is no single statute, nor a unified framework, regulating foreign direct investment ( FDI) in Latvia. Nonetheless, certain fields are subject to investment limitations. The principal legislation is the National Security Law of the Republic of Latvia 2002 (as amended) ( National Security Law 2002). In early 2017, the National Security Law 2002 was revised to introduce a regime that requires Government consent for particular changes affecting companies of national security importance. The regime’s requirements are elaborated in Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 311, ‘ Procedure for Preventing Threats to Commercial Companies, Societies and Foundations of Importance to National Security’. Another sphere where foreign investment is curtailed is the acquisition of land, especially agricultural and forest land. These constraints have been shaped through various enactments, including the Law On Land Privatisation in Rural Areas 1993 (as...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 6 October 2021; it is no longer being updated. See also, timeline. Case facts Outline Joined Cases C‑174/19 Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland v Commission and C‑175/19 Stena Line Scandinavia v Commission-appeals against the General Court’s judgments in Cases T‑630/15 and T‑631/15, which partially set aside the Commission’s approval of aid for the financing of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link between Denmark and Germany ( SA.39078). Latest development On 6 October 2021, the Court of Justice delivered its ruling and rejected the appeals in full. Parties Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland (together, Scandlines) and their parent Scandferries Holdings Ap S, owned by a consortium comprising First State Investments, Hermes Investment Management and equity investor 3i Group. Scandlines runs ferry services between Denmark and Germany on two routes, Rødby– Puttgarden and Gedser– Rostock (the former crossing the Fehmarn...
On 4 January 2022, the National Security and Investment Act 2021 ( NSI Act) brought in a compulsory foreign direct investment ( FDI) notification framework in the UK for deals in specified sectors to safeguard national security. Running in parallel with the existing merger control system, it supplanted the former powers that allowed government intervention in merger reviews on national security grounds. The tracker below outlines the NSI Act’s journey through the parliamentary process. In particular, it charts the legislation’s movement through Parliament to its enactment, as well as later significant milestones and materials released once the NSI Act took effect. 2026 Date Stage Further reading 26/03/2026 The Cabinet Office issued a Memorandum of Understanding ( Mo U) with the CMA on how the NSI Act operates. This Mo U replaces a June 2022 Mo U between BEIS and the CMA • Mo U...
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
