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
The Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA), together with sector regulators holding concurrent competition powers, can levy penalties of up to 10% of an undertaking’s turnover where a breach of UK competition rules is established (specifically, the Chapter I and Chapter II prohibitions under the Competition Act 1998). Up to 31 December 2020, the CMA could likewise fine at that level for infringements of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. The cap on any penalty is set by the undertaking’s worldwide turnover in its last business year—the highest fine the CMA (or sectoral regulators with concurrent enforcement powers) may impose is 10% of the undertaking’s global turnover. For these purposes, the “last business year” is the financial year prior to the date the infringement ceased. When determining the level of any penalty, the CMA (and relevant sectoral regulators) will be directed by the...
Director disqualification for competition law breaches In the UK, where a company is found to have infringed competition law and a director was involved, or ought reasonably to have known, the court can order that person to be disqualified from acting as a director of any company for up to 15 years. Any infringement of competition law can result in a disqualification order, on top of penalties imposed on the company itself, such as fines, and criminal penalties for individuals. The Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA) has issued guidance on competition disqualification orders. In addition, the CMA, together with the Institute of Risk Management, has published updated guidance on competition law risk for managers, directors and their advisers. The update contains case studies, examples of best practice, and forewords highlighting the CMA’s refreshed approach to detecting and enforcing against competition...
1. What is the applicable legislation? Sweden operates two principal investment control frameworks. The Swedish FDI Regulation (the FDI Regulation), effective from 1 December 2023, is the primary scheme governing foreign direct investment in Sweden. Its protective remit is Sweden’s security and public order or public safety in Sweden, capturing any undertaking whose operations need safeguarding to maintain that security, order or safety. The Protective Security Act (the PSA), in force since 1996, is narrower than the FDI Regulation and targets only deals involving businesses that carry out security-sensitive activities. The PSA’s protected interest is Sweden’s security, covering activities that are significant for Sweden’s security or that fall under an international protective security commitment binding on Sweden. The FDI Regulation and the PSA partially overlap in scope. Both extend to security-sensitive activities and, to differing extents, essential services. However, the PSA is confined to...
NOTE—to verify whether notification thresholds in Spain and worldwide are fulfilled, refer to: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Spanish merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Spain? On 28 April 2021, Royal Decree- Law 7/2021 of 27 April ( RD 7/2021) was issued, modifying the Spanish Competition Act ( Law 15/2007, of 3 July 2007, on the Defence of Competition, or LDC). RD 7/2021 sought to transpose several EU directives into Spanish law, notably Directive ( EU) 2019/1 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 ( Directive 2019/1), strengthening the competition authorities of the Member States. Its purpose was to ensure EU requirements were fully reflected in domestic legislation. That said, the changes RD 7/2021 introduced into the LDC had no...
1. What is the applicable legislation? Singapore maintains a comparatively liberal approach to inbound investment across the region. The Significant Investments Review Act 2024 ( SIRA 2024) regulates foreign capital into ‘designated entities’ to protect Singapore’s national security. Alongside SIRA 2024, certain industries are governed by sectoral statutes that apply to fresh investments in regulated fields and activities—for example, banks, financial institutions, or ownership within the newspaper publishing sector—as elaborated below. 2. Which government or other body (or bodies) reviews foreign investments? The Ministry of Trade and Industry ( MTI) oversees trade and investment matters and aims to keep Singapore’s economy competitive and attractive to investors. Housed within MTI, the Office of Significant Investments Review administers SIRA 2024. The Economic Development Board, MTI’s lead agency, designs investment promotion strategies and plans to grow Singapore’s economy, and helps to facilitate and support foreign investment into...
Types of pricing conduct In broad terms, EU and UK competition rules concentrate on two classes of pricing behaviour: agreements and/or concerted practices concerning price; and pricing strategies pursued by ‘dominant’ undertakings. Agreements and concerted practices Arrangements and coordinated conduct between two or more undertakings about the level at which prices are fixed or otherwise aligned (directly or indirectly via contractual devices, off‑the‑record behaviour, and/or exchanges of information). These ‘price restrictions’ (covering vertical distribution/resale terms, price parity clauses, horizontal cooperation, and cartel or cartel‑like behaviour) chiefly raise Article 101(1) TFEU/ Chapter I of the UK Competition Act 1998 ( CA 98) issues (see the prohibition on restrictive agreements and the Chapter I prohibition). Price coordination (whether horizontal or vertical) is generally viewed as illegitimate—being among the most problematic restraints as it conflicts with the very essence of...
Due diligence and the negotiation of a merger will unavoidably include the exchange of information between the parties. It is therefore essential that any such sharing is consistent with competition law. This Practice Note sets out the key steps to follow before closing, addressing both information flows and pre-merger integration planning. Outline the potential competition law issues that may arise during due diligence and deal negotiations, and the safeguards to minimise risk; and Highlight competition concerns linked to integration planning by the merging parties and the need for suitable safeguards to avoid breaches. Note—the term ‘merger’ in this Practice Note covers mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures or other business combinations. Information exchanges What are the competition law issues involved? Until completion, parties to a prospective transaction remain competitors. The sharing of competitively sensitive information ( CSI) between competitors can lead to serious...
Note—for guidance on whether notification thresholds in China and worldwide are met, see: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the regime and are there any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in China? On 18 November 2021, the State Anti- Monopoly Bureau (the SAMR) was formally announced, and the competition law enforcement body was elevated from a unit within the SAMR to a national bureau overseen by a ministry and commission under the State Council, holding deputy ministerial status. Before this, China’s anti-monopoly framework was directed by the State Council and implemented through three arms within the Ministry of Commerce, the National Development and Reform Commission, and the former State Administration for Industry and Commerce. Following the 2018 institutional reform, responsibility shifted to the SAMR and its...
1. What is the applicable legislation? The cornerstone of Poland’s foreign investment control is the Polish Law of 24 July 2015 on the control of certain investments (the Act on Investment Control 2015), together with the resolutions of the Polish Council of Ministers adopted under this regulation. Measures broadening and clarifying foreign investment oversight in Poland were first introduced on a temporary footing in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; as of 24 July 2025, however, the regime was made permanent. Aside from the Act on Investment Control 2015, there are a number of instruments not expressly designed as foreign investment controls but which, in practice, also impose practical constraints with respect to such transactions. These include: the Act of 6 March 2018 on the principles of participation of foreign business entities and other foreign persons in commercial practices within the territory of the...
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 the Philippines? Notification thresholds From 1 March 2026, the Philippine Competition Commission ( PCC) increased the compulsory merger notification thresholds in the Philippines to PHP 9.1bn for the turnover threshold and to PHP 3.8bn for the size of transaction threshold, up from PHP 8.5bn and PHP 3.5bn, respectively. Further details on these thresholds are set out in Question 4 below. Guidelines on Merger Remedies On 9 May 2024, the PCC adopted the Guidelines on Merger Remedies ( Guidelines), which outline the PCC’s approach to assessing remedies for mergers and acquisitions that, during review, are considered likely to lead to a substantial prevention, restriction, or lessening of competition ( SLC) in defined relevant markets. The Guidelines cover the design, choice, and...
NOTE—for guidance on whether notification thresholds in Nepal and across the globe are satisfied, refer to: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Nepalese merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Nepal? The Competition Promotion and Market Protection Act, 2007 (2063) ( Competition Act) oversees competition in Nepal, protecting markets from monopoly and regulating controlled market practices. The Competition Promotion and Market Protection Board ( Competition Board) is the competent authority, tasked with addressing monopolistic conduct and supervising controlled market practices. The merger control provisions remain unamended, and no changes are expected in the near future. 2. Under the Nepalese merger control 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 Namibia and across the globe are satisfied, consult: Where to Notify. Introduction The merger control framework in Namibia is set out in Chapter 4 of the Namibian Competition Act 2 of 2003 (the Act) together with the merger control rules promulgated under the Act (the Rules). Competition Law in Namibia is implemented through coordinated efforts of several authorities, namely the Namibian Competition Commission ( Commission), the Minister of Industrialisation and Trade ( Minister), and the Namibian High Court. Where the applicable financial thresholds are reached, merger filings are compulsory and must be submitted to the Commission. The Minister may, on application, review decisions of the Commission. Under section 42 of the Act, a ‘merger’ arises where one or more undertakings, directly or indirectly, obtain or create direct or indirect control over all or part of another...
NOTE—to check whether notification thresholds in Mexico and worldwide are triggered, see further: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Mexican merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Mexico? There have been significant recent changes to the Mexican merger control regime, comprising amendments to the applicable legislation and the establishment of a new competition authority. The governing statute is the Federal Economic Competition Law 2015 ( Ley Federal de Competencia Económica, Competition Law 2015), as revised by a reform published in the Official Gazette on 16 July 2025, which came into force on 17 July 2025 ( Publicación DOF 16 de julio de 2025 Edición Vespertina, Amendment 2025). Under the Amendment 2025, the National Antitrust Commission ( Comisión Nacional...
1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Ivorian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Côte d' Ivoire? The country’s competition statute was most recently revised in 2019 via Ordinance No. 2019-389 of 8 May 2019, which modified Ordinance No. 2013-662 of 20 September 2013 (the Competition Act). Enforcement of the Competition Act rests with the National Competition Commission ( NCC). That said, mergers fall outside the scope of the Competition Act. Côte d' Ivoire belongs to the West African Economic and Monetary Union ( Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine) ( WAEMU) and must comply with WAEMU competition rules set out in Directive 02/2002/ CM/ UEMOA (the WAEMU Regulations). Merger control is exclusively within WAEMU’s remit across its members; domestically, the NCC’s role is largely to support the WAEMU...
Note— To check whether notification thresholds in Kenya and across the globe are met, see: Where to Notify. Kenya is also part of COMESA and the EAC, which run supra-national merger control systems. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Kenyan merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Kenya? The principal law is the Competition Act, No. 12 of 2010 (the Act), also cited as the Competition Act, Chapter 504, Laws of Kenya, in force since 1 August 2011. The Competition ( General) Rules, 2019 took effect on 6 December 2019. The Competition Authority of Kenya ( CAK) has refreshed its Guidelines on Relevant Market Definition to incorporate globally mainstream concepts such as multi-sided markets and digital markets. In December 2023, the CAK released the...
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 Burkina Faso? Law No. 016-2017/ AN on the Organisation of Competition in Burkina Faso was enacted on 27 April 2017 (the Competition Law), superseding the earlier Act. The Competition Law aligned the roles of national and regional competition bodies and raised sanctions for breaches of competition rules. The National Commission of Competition and Consumption ( Commission Nationale de la Concurrence et de la Consommation) ( NCCC) serves as Burkina Faso’s regulator and is tasked with enforcing the Competition Law. To our knowledge, there have been no recent changes to the regime, and no updates are expected over the next year. Likewise, there are no ‘hot’ merger control issues currently identified in Burkina Faso. Burkina Faso is also a...
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 Fiji? Nothing significant. Fiji’s competition framework and legislation are dated. In April 2020, the Fijian Government released a Competition and Consumer Policy Statement (the Statement). It proposes legislative changes, including to the pre-notification merger regime. Key proposals include: retaining a pre-merger notification system, with mandatory filing for mergers meeting thresholds to be set (for example, market share, transaction value, or domestic/global turnovers) subjecting unnotified mergers/acquisitions that may substantially lessen competition to remedies, including potential nullification Since April 2020 there appears to have been little movement, and there is no clear indication of when these reforms might be implemented. 2. Under law, is the control test the same as the EU concept of...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Case T- 66/25 ARCHIVED —this archived case hub captures the position as at the final decision of 14 November 2024; it is not being maintained any longer. See the timeline for further information. Case facts Outline European Commission ( Commission) Article 102 TFEU probe into alleged distortion of competition across the markets for online classified advertising ( AT.40684). Latest development On 14 November 2024, the Commission adopted an infringement decision and imposed fines totalling €792.72m on Meta. Parties Meta: Meta is a US multinational technology firm......
This monitors and outlines current EU enforcement measures connected to the EU’s Digital Markets Act ( DMA). For details and context on the DMA via the ordinary legislative process, consult: EU Digital Markets Act—progress tracker. For every concluded EU enforcement measure concerning the DMA, refer to here......
CASE HUB (appeals lodged at the General Court in Cases T- 140/26, T- 140/26 R, T- 148/26 and T- 149/26) ARCHIVED —this archived case hub mirrors the position at the date of the final decision on 15 December 2025; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary Case facts Outline European Commission ( Commission) Article 101 TFEU probe into an alleged cartel concerning the supply of automotive starter batteries across the EEA ( Case AT.40545). Latest development On 15 December 2025, the Commission stated it had imposed fines totalling €72m on three automotive starter battery makers, together with the trade association too......
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
