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 (date of judgment—07/09/2016) See further: timeline commentary related/similar cases Case facts ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position as at 7 September 2016; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeal by Pilkington group companies against the General Court’s ruling that upheld the Commission decision of 12 November 2008 finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, and imposing a €370m fine on Pilkington for its alleged involvement in a market‑sharing and price‑fixing cartel, described as a “single and continuous infringement”, relating to the supply of car glass within the EEA from 1998 to 2003 (the “ Car glass cartel”). On 7 September 2016, the Court of Justice rejected the appeal in its entirety, thereby confirming the General Court’s judgment and the fine imposed by the Commission, which at the time was among the largest...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 9 December 2020; it is not being updated See the timeline, commentary and connected cases for further details. Case facts Outline Appeal to the Court of Justice against the General Court’s ruling dismissing an action to annul the Commission’s decision to accept commitments offered by Paramount Pictures in the inquiry into cross-border access to pay- TV ( Case AT.40023). Latest development On 9 December 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, allowing the appeal and setting aside the Commission’s decision to accept commitments from Paramount Pictures. The Court essentially concluded that the Commission did not properly take into account the pre-existing rights of a third party ( Canal +), amounting to a breach of the principle of...
General overview of the Investment Canada Act regime The Investment Canada Act ( ICA) empowers the Canadian government to examine specified investments by non- Canadians in Canadian enterprises and, where it deems it suitable, to stop a deal from advancing, require a completed or proposed transaction to be unwound or divestment undertaken, or grant clearance subject to investor undertakings and commitments. There are two principal components to ICA scrutiny: the ‘net benefit review’ process, the ‘national security review’ process Under the net benefit review, a non- Canadian seeking to obtain control of a Canadian business (including a Canadian operation owned by a foreign parent), and whose purchase surpasses specified thresholds, must demonstrate to government that the investment will provide a net benefit to Canada. Although the ICA lists various factors to be weighed, the outcome is largely...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment date, 8 March 2023; it is no longer being maintained. See also the timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline An action before the General Court seeking compensation from the Commission followed the General Court’s judgment of 7 November 2019 in Case T- 240/17, which lowered the fine imposed on Campine NV and Campine Recycling NV for their involvement in the car battery recycling cartel from €8,158,000 to €4,275,648. Latest developments On 8 March 2023, the General Court gave its judgment, holding that Campanie and Campine Recycling may obtain compensation for the Commission’s refusal to pay default interest after a decision was partially annulled and the fine reduced in relation to its role in the car battery recycling purchasing cartel. Applying principles established in the Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C- 301/19 P,...
CASE HUB (date of judgments—16/06/2016) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decisions of 16 June 2016; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeals were brought against the General Court’s judgments which, while slightly lowering the individual fine imposed on Evonik Degussa, essentially confirmed the Commission decision of 22 July 2009. That decision found infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA and imposed penalties of €13.3m on SKW Stahl‑ Metallurgie and €3.7m on Evonik Degussa (reduced from €4.7m by the General Court), in connection with SKW Stahl‑ Metallurgie’s alleged role in a calcium carbide and magnesium cartel during 2004–2007 (“ Calcium carbide cartel”). On 16 June 2016, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeals in their entirety. The Evonik Degussa appeal is noteworthy as it provided another occasion to assess the rules on...
Note—to check whether notification thresholds in Burundi and worldwide are satisfied, please see: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been recent developments regarding the regime? What are the main points of interest and are any further updates/developments expected? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Burundi? Burundi operates a merger control framework, and a decree setting out the organisation and functioning of Burundi’s Independent Competition Commission (the Commission) has been effective since 30 October 2023. The Commission was, however, formally launched in Burundi on 25 April 2025. Among the Commission’s responsibilities is determining matters within its remit, in particular collective anti-competitive practices as defined by Law No. 1/06 of 25 March 2010 on the Legal Regime of Competition, Burundi ( Competition Act)......
Note—consult Where to Notify to check whether notification thresholds in Bulgaria and worldwide are satisfied... 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Bulgarian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Bulgaria? The first major overhaul of the Bulgarian merger control framework came with the enactment of the current Competition Protection Act, SG No. 102/2008 ( CPA 2008), at the end of 2008. Following the 2021 changes to the test and certain procedural elements for assessing concentrations, the merger control requirements were revised again at the end of 2025. The 2025 amendments largely focus on merger notification matters and the range of decisions available to the Competition Protection Commission ( CPC)... In 2021, alongside earlier significant CPA amendments, new Rules on imposing remedies to restore effective competition in...
This table summarises all completed investigations by the Bulgarian competition authority (the Commission for the Protection of Competition— CPC) into alleged cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominant positions ( Articles 101/102 TFEU and national equivalents) since 2018. Note—just investigations already placed in the public domain appear in this table......
1. What is the applicable legislation? Bulgaria’s FDI framework arises from an amendment to the Bulgarian Investment Promotion Act (the FDI Act), effective from 12 March 2024. Although the amendment is now in effect, the regime is not yet functioning because full rollout awaits the adoption of the FDI Act’s implementing and organisational regulations. In particular, one implementing regulation has been enacted, while a second is anticipated to be adopted shortly by the Council of Ministers. Consequently, the Act sets out a ‘transitional regime’: FDIs initiated after the amendment took effect but before those regulations are adopted do not need to file for FDI authorisation. 2. Which government or other body (or bodies) reviews foreign investments? Screenable foreign direct investments under the FDI Act must be cleared by the newly created Interministerial Council for Screening of Foreign Direct Investments (the Council), which exercises...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this case hub reflects the position at the judgment date of 17 February 2014; it is no longer updated. For further information, see timetable, commentary and related cases Case facts Outline British Telecom appealed, with the support of the Office of Communication ( Ofcom), to the Court of Appeal against the Competition Appeal Tribunal ( CAT) judgment which had held Ofcom’s decision imposing a wholesale must-offer duty on British Sky Broadcasting was unjustified and ordered it to be quashed. On 17 February 2014, the Court of Appeal concluded that Ofcom acted lawfully in directing BSky B to supply its channels wholesale to rival providers, and found that the CAT made an error of law by failing to properly determine issues that were before it on appeal......
This table sets out every concluded inquiry conducted by Botswana’s competition regulator—the Competition and Consumer Authority ( CCA)—regarding suspected cartels, anti-competitive deals, and exploitations of market dominance from 2018 onwards. Note it lists only those probes that have been publicly disclosed......
Note—to check whether notification thresholds in Bosnia and Herzegovina and worldwide are satisfied, see Where to Notify 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Bosnia and Herzegovina? In August 2020, the Competition Council ( Konkurencijsko vijeće, Competition Council) set up a working group to draft amendments to the Law on Competition 2005 ( Competition Law 2005). Nevertheless, no amendments have been enacted to date, and there is currently no publicly disclosed timetable for legislative changes. Beyond this, there have been no notable recent developments within the regime, and no particular ‘hot’ merger control issues have surfaced in practice 2. Under the law, is the control test the same as the EU concept of ‘decisive influence’? If not, how does it differ and what is the...
Note—to check whether notification thresholds in Bolivia and worldwide are currently triggered, please consult Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Bolivian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Bolivia? Bolivia lacks a cross‑cutting merger control statute; instead, merger oversight exists within regulated industries, including energy, telecommunications, hydrocarbons, banking, insurance and securities. Across most of the last twenty years, regulators in these fields have been afforded very wide, often discretionary, competences, resulting in merger control obligations that differ markedly from one sector to another. After close to two decades of dominant executive and legislative control by an administration aligned with typical Latin American left‑wing platforms, forecasts for the next presidential race suggest a potential change in the political landscape over the coming year. There appears to be a...
This note seeks to monitor and condense legislative, guidance and wider policy movements that illuminate how global competition authorities are addressing the ways blockchain technology could trigger competition law issues. 2023 Jurisdiction and body: Luxembourg ( Autorité de la concurrence) Details: The authority opened a market study focused on the blockchain industry Developments: Press release issued—06/06/2023 2021 Jurisdiction and body: France ( Autorité de la Concurrence— Ad C) Details: Following its 2020 Fintech inquiry, the Ad C released findings that, amongst other matters, explore competition law risks arising from blockchain use Developments: Public opinion released—29/04/2021 Jurisdiction and body: India ( CCI) Details: Discussion paper intended to provide stakeholders with broad-level information on the interplay between blockchain applications and competition law Developments: Discussion paper published— April 2021......
1. What is the applicable legislation? In relation to supervising foreign investment, the Republic of Belarus presently does not possess a fully cohesive framework. Rules on oversight (and any carve-outs) arise from a mix of specific international accords—most notably the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union, with Appendices 1–33, executed in Astana on 29 May 2014 (the EAEU Treaty)—together with domestic law. Of particular significance is the Protocol on Trade in Services, Establishment, Activities and Investment, set out in Appendix 16 to the EAEU Treaty ( Protocol 16). It requires abstaining from applying specified controls to investors originating from EAEU member states ( Belarus, Russia, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan)......
ARCHIVED – this case hub preserves the position as at the judgment of 15 February 2019 and is no longer maintained. For more, see the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal by Balmoral Tanks Limited and Balmoral Group Holdings Limited challenging the CAT’s ruling that upheld the CMA’s decision regarding a cartel in the supply of galvanised steel water storage tanks. Latest development On 15 February 2019, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment, dismissing Balmoral’s appeal in full. Parties Appellants— Balmoral Tanks Limited ( Balmoral) and its parent company Balmoral Group Holdings Limited Respondent— Competition and Markets Authority Background On 27 November 2012, the CMA opened its investigation into the galvanised steel tanks for water storage cartel ( CE/9691/12). The CMA also brought a criminal prosecution under the criminal cartel offence. In brief, Nigel Snee, former Managing Director of Franklin Hodge Industries Ltd (...
1. What is the applicable legislation? The key legal framework overseeing foreign investment into Austria comprises: Investment Control Act ( ICA) Regulation ( EU) 2019/452 ( EU‑ FDI Screening Regulation), which sets up an EU‑wide cooperation mechanism between the European Commission ( Commission) and EU Member States regarding so‑called ‘ FDI screenings’ In addition, multiple bilateral investment treaties ( BITs) may apply, depending on the jurisdiction with which the relevant investor is linked, and which Austria has concluded for the mutual protection of investments. Austria is currently a party to BITs with several countries. For completeness, there are Austrian regulations that apply to all investments, not only foreign direct investments, but which can at times particularly affect foreign investments and may have notable implications for foreign investors in practice too......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the decision date of 16 September 2015 and is no longer updated. See the timeline, commentary and related cases for further details. Case facts Outline UK merger review concerning the proposed combination of Ashford St Peter's NHS Foundation Trust with Royal Surrey County NHS Foundation Trust. The CMA cleared the merger after a phase 2 inquiry on 16/09/2015. Latest developments On 16 September 2015, the CMA gave unconditional clearance to the transaction, confirming its provisional conclusions. Parties Ashford and St Peter's NHS Foundation Trust ( Ashford and St Peter's) and Royal Surrey County NHS Foundation Trust ( Royal Surrey). Ashford and St Peter's run two hospitals, in Ashford and Chertsey, with a total of 570 beds, providing general hospital services to more than 380,000 people in Surrey. Royal Surrey operates one hospital in Guildford, with 520 beds, offering general...
CASE HUB See further, timeline. Case facts Outline of the European Commission’s investigation into whether Italy’s choice to adopt a Decree by the Italian Prime Minister, imposing specific obligations in relation to the acquisition of BPM by Uni Credit ( M.12052), amounts to an infringement of Article 21 EUMR ( M.10494). Latest developments On 14 July 2025, the Commission issued its preliminary decision, concluding that Italy’s issuance of a Prime Ministerial Decree setting obligations linked to Uni Credit’s acquisition of BPM constituted a breach of Article 21 EUMR. Parties Uni Credit S.p. A. ( Unicredit) Based in Milan, Uni Credit provides retail, commercial and private banking, together with insurance and asset management services. It is principally active in Italy, Germany, and Central and Eastern Europe. It also maintains a modest presence in the UK and the US. In Italy, Uni Credit is the second largest banking group by assets and is a...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the status as at the decision dated 10 December 2015; it is not being updated. See the timeline, commentary and related cases for more details. Case facts Outline: European Commission Article 102 TFEU investigation into Bulgarian Energy Holding concerning the wholesale electricity market (case number AT.39767). Latest development On 10 December 2015, the Commission formally accepted binding commitments from Bulgarian Energy Holding......
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
