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
Note—to check whether notification thresholds in Ethiopia and worldwide are triggered, see: Where to Notify. Ethiopia also participates in COMESA, which runs a supra-national merger control system. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Ethiopian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Ethiopia? The Ethiopia Trade Competition and Consumer Protection Authority ( TCCPA) issued a Directive in April 2015 setting a pre-merger notification threshold (see Question 4). In October 2021, the TCCPA stopped operating independently, with its functions moved to the Ministry of Trade and Regional Integration ( Mo TRI). The Ethiopian Commercial Code 1243/2013 ( Commercial Code) has been amended to add provisions on mergers and divisions. It now governs amalgamations and takeovers, but its reach is narrower than the Trade Competition and Consumer Protection...
Introduction Defining the relevant market is traditionally the first step in most competition law analysis. It offers an impartial conceptual structure for systematically pinpointing competitors (or potential competitors) that may constrain a firm’s behaviour. The European Commission ( Commission) describes these forces as ‘effective and immediate competitive constraints’. Competition authorities use market definition in several contexts, in particular for merger control, the assessment of anti-competitive agreements, and abuse of dominance cases. merger control — competition authorities appraise the impact of the proposed merger. For this purpose, the Commission and the Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA) delineate the markets in which the merging parties operate, and the competitive pressure the combined entity would encounter within those markets anti-competitive agreements — when authorities suspect a restrictive agreement between suppliers or purchasers, they typically examine whether it generated anti-competitive effects. This entails defining the markets that may have been...
NOTE—to check whether notification thresholds in Russia and worldwide are met, see: Where to Notify. 1. There have been recent developments regarding the Russian merger control regime. What are the main points of interest and are any further updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Russia? Russia’s merger control is established by Federal Law No 135- FZ of 26 July 2006 ‘ On Protection of Competition’ (the Competition Law), alongside decrees and guidance issued by the Russian competition authority, the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation ( FAS). The FAS sets the procedure and detailed requirements for obtaining merger clearance. In addition to the general regime under the Competition Law, specific rules apply to foreign investment: (1) Federal Law No 160- FZ of 9 July 1999 ‘ On Foreign Investments in the Russian...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 15 January 2026 and is no longer maintained. See the timeline for further details. Case facts Outline: a UK merger investigation into Aramark Limited’s completed purchase of Entier Limited. The deal features horizontal overlaps in the provision of catering and related facilities management services to the offshore energy industry in the UK North Sea. Latest developments On 15 January 2026, the CMA issued its final report, finding the merger likely to result in an SLC in the supply of offshore catering and ancillary facilities management services for assets used in the oil and gas sector on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf ( UKCS), as the parties are close rivals, among the largest suppliers, and face limited competitive pressure. As a remedy, Aramark proposed a contract divestment to address the CMA’s...
NOTE—to check whether notification thresholds in Chile and worldwide are satisfied, please see: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Chilean merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Chile? On 1 June 2026, Chile’s current merger control framework will have been in force for seven years. Set out in Section IV of the Chilean Competition Act ( Decree Law No. 211, DL 211), it created a pre-emptive, compulsory notification to the National Economic Prosecutor’s Office ( Fiscalía Nacional Económica, FNE) for transactions deemed ‘concentration operations’ that satisfy the thresholds described below......
1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Cape Verdean merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Cape Verde? Competition in Cape Verde falls under the Competition Act, Decree- Law No. 53/2003 of 24 November 2003 ( Competition Act). Under that statute, oversight and enforcement of competition rules sit with the Ministry for Industry, Trade and Energy ( MITE) and the National Directorate for Industry, Trade and Energy ( Nd TE). The Nd TE undertakes studies and inquiries and assembles the dossier for a ministerial ruling. Together, these bodies monitor compliance and apply the rules set out in that act within Cape Verde. A key recent change is the interim transfer, in the short-to-medium term, of competence for competition matters to the Ministry of Finance. The legal...
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 Cambodia? Cambodia introduced a comprehensive Law on Competition ( No. NS/ RKM/1021/013) on 5 October 2021 (the Law), which outlaws anti-competitive mergers under Article 11. The merger control framework is elaborated in the Sub- Decree on the Requirements and Procedures for Business Combinations, issued on 6 March 2023 ( No. 60 ANKR. BK) ( SD 60) and fully operational from 6 September 2023. Additional particulars have been delivered through regulatory instruments and decisions. Certain sector-specific clearances are also required in regulated industries (including banking and finance), and listed companies must obtain pre-approval from the Securities and Exchange Regulator of Cambodia. Collectively, these measures constitute Cambodia’s merger control regime... 2. Under the law, is the control test the same as...
NOTE – to check whether notification thresholds in Brazil and worldwide are met, refer to Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Brazilian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Brazil? Release of relevant institutional documents Since the Brazilian Competition Law took effect in 2012, the Administrative Council for Economic Defense ( CADE) has prioritised deeper institutionalisation by publishing guidance, including on gun‑jumping, merger remedies and the appraisal of horizontal mergers. In 2024, CADE introduced the following: Guidelines for assessing non‑horizontal mergers (the V+ Guidelines), designed to enhance the authority’s toolkit for merger analysis in Brazil alongside the horizontal merger guidelines; Best‑practice directions on appointing trustees or similar mechanisms in antitrust matters (the Trustee Guidelines), intended to bolster adherence to decisions, commitments and agreements in merger control and in...
Note—to verify if notification thresholds in Belgium and worldwide are triggered, please consult: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been recent developments regarding the Belgian merger control regime? What are the main points of interest and are any further updates/developments expected? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Belgium? Belgium first adopted merger control through the Act on the Protection of Economic Competition of 5 August 1991 (the 1991 Act). At inception, the Belgian thresholds combined both turnover and market share criteria. That 1991 framework was superseded by new rules in 1999, and later by the Act on the Protection of Economic Competition of 2006 (the 2006 Act). The 2006 Act delivered significant reforms to merger oversight, most notably because the substantive assessment of concentrations was brought into line with the approach under the EU Merger Regulation ( EUMR)....
Note To determine whether notification thresholds in Barbados and worldwide are satisfied, please consult: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Barbadian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Barbados? There is a continuing upswing in acquisitions across the commercial arena, leading to more merger notifications being submitted to the Barbados Fair Trading Commission (the Commission). No recent legislative changes have altered the merger control framework. The Commission remains vigilant about this trend and monitors deals within their relevant markets. While the Commission has authorised mergers in multiple sectors, it has not approved all transactions. Notably, it rejected the proposed acquisition of ice-cream producer BICO Ltd. by Trinidad & Tobago-based HADCO Ltd., acting through its Barbados subsidiary, on the basis that the transaction would...
A conversation with Kazi Ershadul Alam, Partner, and Munqualib Faruqui, Associate, at Bangladeshi law firm Tanjib Alam and Associates, on key issues on merger control in Bangladesh Note—to check whether notification thresholds in Bangladesh and worldwide are satisfied, see Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Bangladeshi merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Bangladesh? The latest and most significant change to the merger control landscape is the addition of the Eight Schedule, Part 1 – Business Restructuring, within the newly enacted Income Tax Act 2023 ( Income Tax Act). Under the Income Tax Act, no tax is payable on capital gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset pursuant to a reconstruction scheme (merger or demerger), provided certain conditions are met. That said, any...
Note – to determine whether notification thresholds in Azerbaijan and around the world are satisfied, see: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the merger control regime in Azerbaijan and are any updates or developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Azerbaijan? On 8 December 2023, the Law approving the Competition Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan (the Competition Code) was adopted. This Code marks a substantial overhaul of the national regulatory landscape. Consisting of 12 chapters and 84 articles, it brings in fresh concepts and definitions, including relevant market, unfair trade practices, low monopoly price, barriers to entry, and concentration of economic entities. The Competition Code supersedes the Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Antimonopoly Activity of 4 March 1993 and the Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Unfair...
NOTE—to check whether notification thresholds in Australia and across the world are met, please see: Where to Notify. 1. What recent developments have occurred in the Australian merger control regime, and are any updates expected in the year ahead? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Australia? Substantial changes to Australia’s merger regime as of 1 April 2026 From 1 January 2026, Australia’s merger regime experienced the biggest changes in roughly fifty years. The reforms were intended to make Australian mergers simpler, quicker and more transparent, and to align Australia’s approach with that of other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development economies. Nevertheless, the regime that has emerged is highly intricate, carefully calibrated and uniquely Australian. The new framework has been contentious, and its effectiveness in practice is still to be determined......
A discussion with Intan Eow, Partner, at the Sydney office of international law firm King & Wood Mallesons, on key matters concerning foreign direct investment ( FDI) control in Australia. 1. What is the applicable legislation? The chief statute regulating acquisitions of Australian businesses, entities or land by foreign persons, and other activities by foreign persons, is the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 ( Cth) ( FATA). The Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Regulations 2015 ( Cth) ( FATR) complement FATA and provide additional particulars of the framework. Moreover, the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Act 2015 ( Cth) and its associated regulations further strengthen the Australian FDI regulatory regime. 2. Which government or other body (or bodies) reviews foreign investments? The Australian Federal Treasurer holds ultimate responsibility for all decisions relating to foreign investment. Australia’s foreign investment regime authorises the Treasurer to make orders on...
Article 102 TFEU bans undertakings holding a dominant position within the EU, or a substantial part of it, from abusing that position where their conduct may affect trade between Member States. It is often difficult to determine whether a company is ‘dominant’ for EU competition law. Dominance does not inevitably mean a majority market share; however, a firm with about 50% will typically be treated as dominant. Unless a company has faced earlier competition cases, or there have been merger findings identifying dominance, it can be unclear whether it is legally dominant. This Practice Note looks more closely at what amounts to a ‘dominant position’... The legal test The Court of Justice describes dominance as a degree of economic strength that allows an undertaking to prevent effective competition from being maintained on the relevant market, conferring the capacity to act to a...
NOTE—to verify whether notification thresholds in Armenia and across the globe are satisfied, please refer to: Where to Notify 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Armenian merger control regime and are any updates or developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other 'hot' issues? The Law on Protection of Economic Competition (the Law) was enacted on 6 November 2000 and has seen multiple amendments since. The latest change was introduced on 12 January 2025. Merger control is still a comparatively fresh area in the Republic of Armenia, and its practical implementation continues to prompt a number of questions. Broadly, the framework is advancing in line with the move towards an EU-style model 2. Under Armenian 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 Angola and worldwide are met, see further: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Angolan merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Angola? Law No. 5/2018 of 10 May 2018 (the Competition Act) created a modern framework for competition law in Angola and established the Competition Regulatory Authority (the Authority) to enforce it. The Competition Law Regulations were approved by Presidential Decree No. 240/18 on 12 October 2018, with additional rules in December 2018 formally constituting the Authority. More recently, regulation on notification forms was adopted in January 2020, followed by the filing fees regulation in February 2021. The Authority became operational in 2019 and has since routinely received merger notifications. Between 2019 and 2024, the CRA reviewed 73 merger...
NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in Algeria and worldwide are met, please also see further: Where to Notify 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Algerian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Algeria? Corporate matters within this regime fall under the present Algerian Commerce Code ( Ordinance No. 75-59 of 25 September 1975), whereas its competition dimension is currently regulated by the Competition Law ( Ordinance No. 03-03 of 19 July 2003) (the 2003 Ordinance). Two subsequent decrees in 2008 and 2010— Ordinance No. 08-12 of 25 June 2008 (the 2008 Ordinance) and Ordinance No. 10-05 of 15 August 2010—which, together, modified and expanded the 2003 Ordinance, significantly widening its reach to imports of goods for resale, agricultural produce, and public...
NOTE—to check if notification thresholds in Taiwan and worldwide are triggered, see: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Taiwanese merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Taiwan? The Fair Trade Act last underwent revision on 16 June 2017. Among other adjustments, it empowered the Taiwan Fair Trade Commission ( TFTC) to prolong the assessment window for merger notifications to up to 90 business days, and gave the TFTC latitude to obtain outside expert views, introducing new steps relevant to hostile takeovers. In June 2023, the TFTC unveiled a draft amendment to the Fair Trade Act eliminating the market share threshold. The proposal aims to bring greater clarity to filing triggers and to lower compliance burdens. It was formulated after surveying overseas statutes and...
Note— To determine whether merger filing thresholds in Singapore and globally are met, please refer to: 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 Singapore? The merger framework under the Competition Act 2004 commenced in 2007. Since launch, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (which, from 25 September 2025, has been rebranded as the CCS) has received over 110 merger notifications. Of these, the CCS has taken (or publicly indicated it might take) 22 cases to a Phase 2 review for complex mergers—around one in five reviews move to Phase 2; six were cleared conditionally with commitments, and eight were withdrawn by the merging parties as at May 2024. The CCS’s merger notification system operates on a...
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
