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—14/09/2017) Further reading: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVE—14/09/2017 Outline A request for a preliminary ruling was made by Latvia’s Augstākā tiesa ( Supreme Court) to the Court of Justice under Article 267 TFEU. The referring court sought clarification on when the practice of a dominant undertaking, within Article 102 TFEU, in charging elevated prices should be treated as ‘excessive’ and thus breach point (a) in the second paragraph of Article 102 TFEU... Outcome On 14 September 2017, the Court of Justice held, inter alia, that an abuse based on ‘excessive pricing’ can be found where the gap between the price under review and a suitably selected market benchmark is both material and enduring on the facts. As regards an appropriate comparator for that analysis, the Court confirmed that a restricted comparator drawn from neighbouring Member States may suffice, provided that market and its...
CASE HUB See further, timeline Case facts Outline European Commission ( Commission) Article 102 TFEU investigation into suspected predatory pricing by Greek Public Power Corporation ( AT.40278). Latest development On 7 February 2024, the Commission sent its statement of objections. Parties Greek Public Power Corporation ( PPC). PPC is Greece’s largest provider of electricity in both retail and wholesale markets, with the Greek State retaining a significant minority share. Between 2013 and 2019, PPC held all lignite and hydro capacity, alongside some of the natural gas......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the final decision dated 2 June 2025; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary Case facts Outline of an Article 101 TFEU investigation into a cartel in the online food delivery sector ( AT.40795). The conduct included no‑poach arrangements, the exchange of information, and market allocation practices. Latest development On 2 June 2025, the Commission adopted its infringement decision after both firms acknowledged taking part in the cartel. Aggregate fines amounting to €329m were levied. Total fines imposed on each party were as follows: Delivery Hero—€223,285,000 (including a 10% reduction for settlement) Glovo—€105,732,000 (including a 10% reduction for settlement) Parties Delivery Hero SE ( Delivery Hero): Delivery Hero, a German‑based business, operates in food delivery services. It currently has a presence in more than 70 countries worldwide, 16 of which are within the EEA. It...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived hub records the position as at the judgment dated 26 October 2023; it is not being updated or maintained any longer. See further, timeline Case facts Outline. A national Portuguese preliminary reference requesting elucidation of Article 101 TFEU (through the Portuguese counterpart) in relation to a partnership agreement—comprising a tied-selling system and non-compete provisions and contractual clauses—between an electricity supplier and a food distributor......
Article 101(1) TFEU bans agreements that may influence trade between Member States and whose object or effect is to prevent, limit, or distort competition within the common market. Nevertheless, a restrictive arrangement—whether between competitors or non-competitors—will not fall foul of Article 101(1) TFEU if its impact on competition is not appreciable. Put simply, the prohibition does not bite where any identified anti-competitive effects, whether presumed or otherwise, are insignificant; the harm must be sufficiently substantial to justify the attention of the authorities... De minimis doctrine—appreciability This principle, referred to as the de minimis doctrine, was first articulated in Völk v Vervaecke, where the Court of Justice held that an agreement lies outside Article [81(1)] if it has only a trivial influence on the market, bearing in mind the weak market position of the parties in the relevant product market. This applies whatever the nature of the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this case hub is archived and captures the status as at the judgment dated 19 December 2019; it is not being updated. See the timeline for further details. Case facts Outline Case C‑385/18, Arriva Italia and others — a reference from Italy seeking clarification on whether, amongst other issues, the award of €70m to a rail transport operator and the subsequent transfer of that operator to a different economic operator, without any tendering and in the absence of a call for tenders, amounts to unlawful State aid. Latest developments On 19 December 2019, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, holding that both the €70m allocation to the rail transport operator and its transfer to another economic operator, without a tender or call for tenders, constitute unlawful State aid, and that it falls to the national court to decide suitable measures to recover the...
1. What is the applicable legislation? Armenia’s regime for foreign investment is built on a set of laws and international accords, centred on protection and promotion rather than screening. Constitution of the Republic of Armenia 2015 Law of the Republic of Armenia on Foreign Investments 1994 ( Law on Foreign Investments 1994) Law of the Republic of Armenia on Free Economic Zones 2011 Armenia has also concluded bilateral treaties on reciprocal promotion and protection of investments with 44 countries. Note: Armenia has no general foreign direct investment ( FDI) screening or mandatory notification regime. In most cases, foreign investors may proceed without prior government approval, except in regulated sectors—such as banking, telecoms and energy—governed by separate laws. List of signed bilateral treaties on reciprocal promotion and protection of investments: No......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the decision date of 22/10/2025 and is no longer maintained. See the timeline for further details. Case facts Outline The CMA’s DMCCA 2024 investigation examined whether Apple should be designated as having SMS in the provision of its mobile platform. Latest development On 22 October 2025, the CMA published its final decision designating Apple with SMS in the supply of its mobile platform in the UK. Parties Apple Background On 23 January 2025, the CMA issued an investigation notice setting out the basis for opening the case. On the same day, it also released an invitation to comment ( ITC) outlining the scope of the investigation, the primary lines of investigation, and the potential issues and interventions under consideration......
ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and no longer updated. It is not maintained. On 10 May 2022, the Commission introduced the new Vertical Block Exemption Regulation 2022/720 ( VBER 2022). This measure was formally adopted by the Commission. With effect from 1 June 2022, VBER 2022 superseded the former Vertical Restraints Block Regulation 330/2010 ( VBER 2010, also called the VRBE in this Practice Note). This Practice Note was prepared with VBER 2010 in mind. Note—the VBER 2010 lapsed on 31 May 2022 and, from 1 June 2022, was succeeded by the VBER 2022. Under Article 10 of VBER 2022, a 12‑month transition period (ending on 31 May 2023) applied to pre-existing vertical agreements in force on 31 May 2022 that met the exemption criteria under VBER 2010 on 31 May 2022 but did not meet the exemption criteria under VBER 2022....
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the decision date of 13/06/2014; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline OFT Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I investigation concerning DB Apparel UK Limited ( DBA) and three department stores for fixing resale prices of sports bras......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub captures the position as at the decision date of 25 April 2019; it is no longer being maintained or updated. NOTE—an appeal was lodged by Sainsbury’s and Asda before the CAT (1300/4/12/18). See further: timeline, commentary and related cases for additional context. Case facts Outline of the UK merger inquiry into the proposed combination of J Sainsbury Plc with Asda Group Ltd. The deal features horizontal overlaps within grocery retailing markets and activities. Latest developments On 25 April 2019, the CMA published its final report from its phase 2 investigation into the anticipated Sainsbury’s– Asda merger, concluding that, on the balance of probabilities, the transaction would be expected to give rise to an SLC in a number of markets across the UK—namely, the supply of groceries in supermarkets at both national and local levels, the supply of online grocery...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the decision date of 16 October 2017 and is no longer being maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline: UK merger inquiry into the completed purchase by Cygnet Health Care Limited of Cambian Group plc’s adult services arm. Latest developments On 16 October 2017, the CMA published its final report and approved the deal subject to remedies. The CMA concluded the merger resulted in an SLC regarding the supply of male mental health rehabilitation services in the East Midlands. The merger was cleared in every other originally assessed area, including the West Midlands, where the provisional findings had flagged potential concerns about services for female patients. As a remedy, the parties must sell one of their hospitals in the East Midlands to a CMA-approved...
ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and no longer updated. It was originally prepared to reflect the former Vertical Restraints Block Exemption Regulation 330/2010 ( VBER 2010). In the UK, that regime was superseded by the Competition Act 1998 ( Vertical Agreements Block Exemption) Order 2022 ( VABEO) with effect from 1 June 2022. VBER 2010, which had continued in UK law as a retained EU block exemption, lapsed on 31 May 2022 and, from 1 June 2022, was replaced by VABEO. Article 15 VABEO introduced a 12‑month grace period, running to 1 June 2023, to cover pre‑existing vertical agreements in force before 1 June 2022 that, immediately before that date, complied with the exemption criteria under VBER 2010 but did not meet the exemption conditions under VABEO. Accordingly, this Practice Note is provided solely for background. For analysis of vertical agreements under VABEO, see:...
This table provides an overview of all finalised probes by Ukraine’s competition regulator (the Anti‑ Monopoly Committee of Ukraine—the AMCU) into suspected cartels, anti‑competitive arrangements and abuse of dominance from 2019 onwards. Note: only cases that have been publicly disclosed are included in this table. 2025 Investigations under Article 6 of the Law of Ukraine on Protection of Economic Competition 2001 Medical facility repairs: Absolut- Klimat LLC; Engineeringbud LTD LLC — Restrictive practices—bid‑rigging — Infringement found on 23/12/2025; aggregate fines of UAH 10,614,362. Construction: Perspektyva “ Misto Bud” LLC; Construction Alliance Montazhproekt LLC — Restrictive practices—bid‑rigging — Infringement found on 23/12/2025; total penalties of UAH 453,332. Medical equipment for rehabilitation systems: Promed Technologies LLC; Kinnet Group LLC — Restrictive practices—bid‑rigging — Infringement found on 23/12/2025; total fines of UAH 9,274,314. Electricity meters: Romants Logistics LLC; Albat LLC —...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 16 September 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 462/19 Anesco e.a.—a Spanish reference—asked, amongst other issues, whether Article 101 TFEU ought to be construed as prohibiting pacts between operators and staff representatives which (i) require undertakings quitting a Stevedore Management Company ( SAGEP) to accept the transfer of SAGEP personnel and (ii) set out how that transfer is to occur. Latest developments On 16 September 2020, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment, holding that the preliminary question submitted by the Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia ( National Commission for Markets and Competition, Spain) was inadmissible because it is not a ‘national court or tribunal’ within Article 267...
Article 101(1) TFEU outlaws agreements liable to affect trade between Member States whose object or effect is to prevent, restrict, or distort competition within the common market. Nonetheless, EU case law makes clear that limiting a party’s economic freedom does not automatically amount to a ‘restriction of competition’ under Article 101(1). The Court of Justice has suggested, for example, that it can be doubtful there is any interference with competition where a clause truly appears necessary for an undertaking’s move into a new area. That observation gave rise to the ‘ancillary restraints doctrine’, with the EU Courts and the European Commission ( Commission) acknowledging that certain limitations are not ‘restrictions of competition’ within Article 101(1) when, having regard to the ‘legal and economic context’, they are shown to be necessary to protect the parties’ legitimate interests under the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 4 August 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary Case facts Outline UK merger inquiry into Amazon’s completed purchase of certain rights and a minority shareholding in Deliveroo. The deal gives rise to horizontal overlaps in the markets for online restaurant meal delivery and online convenience grocery delivery. Latest developments On 7 September 2020, the CMA released a notice (dated 26 August 2020) confirming two penalties against Amazon under section 110 of the Enterprise Act 2020. These sanctions followed Amazon’s failure to comply with two separate section 109 notices issued by the CMA, which required the provision of specified information and documents during the phase 2 investigation into its completed acquisition of certain rights and minority stake in Deliveroo. The CMA imposed fines...
NOTE—appeal filed before the General Court in Case T-425/18 ARCHIVED – this archived case hub captures the position as at the decision date of 24 April 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation carried out under Articles 4(1) and 7(1) EUMR into Altice’s failure to notify and gun-jumping in connection with its 2015 acquisition of PT Portugal. Latest developments On 24 April 2018, the Commission adopted an infringement decision and levied a €124.5m fine on Altice. The Commission found that Altice implemented the takeover of PT Portugal before notifying or securing approval from the Commission under the EU Merger Regulation, breaching Articles 4(1) and 7(1) of that Regulation. Parties Altice is a Dutch-based multi-national telecommunications company. Prior to the acquisition of PT Portugal, Altice operated in Portugal through two subsidiaries, Cabovisão and ONI. Cabovisão supplied pay TV, fixed...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the status as at the judgment date of 1 February 2018 and is no longer maintained. For additional details, see the timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts ARCHIVE—01/02/2018 Outline Cases C-261/16 Kühne + Nagel International and Others v Commission, C-264/16 Deutsche Bahn and Others v Commission, C-263/16 Schenker v Commission, and C-271/16 Panalpina World Transport ( Holding) and Others v Commission—appeals brought before the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgment rejecting actions seeking annulment of the European Commission’s decision that identified infringements and levied fines on international freight forwarders for their alleged involvement in four separate cartels concerning freight forwarding services. Outcome On 1 February 2018, the Court of Justice delivered its rulings, dismissing the appeals in full and thereby upholding the General Court’s judgments and the fines imposed by the Commission. Notably, the Court of Justice agreed that the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment of 20 September 2018 and is no longer being maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts ARCHIVE—20/09/2018 Outline Appeal before the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgment dismissing an action seeking annulment of the European Commission’s decision to reject a complaint filed by Agria Polska. That complaint alleged that several competitors—major agrochemical undertakings, assisted by industry associations and a law firm—had violated Articles 101 and 102 TFEU by pursuing a ‘vexatious’ series of administrative and criminal proceedings intended to exclude Agria Polska and its subsidiaries from the ‘plant protection products’ market across various EU Member States, particularly in Poland. Relying on its enforcement priorities, and concluding there was only a limited prospect of establishing an infringement, the Commission declined to open an in-depth...
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
