Featured documents
This Practice Note outlines the law concerning criminal recklessness. The subjective test for recklessness Certain statutory and common law offences allow the prosecution to prove mens rea through ‘recklessness’. Put simply, recklessness is where the accused takes an unjustified risk that results in unlawful harm or damage. The House of Lords in R v G reaffirmed the subjective approach to recklessness. Before R v G, two distinct tests were used, depending on the offence charged: Subjective recklessness from R v Cunningham: the prosecution had to establish that the accused personally foresaw the risk. Objective recklessness from R v Caldwell: the prosecution only needed to show that the risk would have been obvious to a reasonable person, without proving the accused themselves foresaw it. In R v G, the House of Lords concluded that the objective test could operate unfairly where a defendant did not foresee the
This Practice Note examines the remedy of rescission, explaining when and in what manner a contract can be unwound (at common law, in equity and under statute) and thereby terminated and brought to an end. It covers the consequences and effects of rescission, the principal grounds for setting aside an agreement (misrepresentation, mistake, undue influence, duress, non‑disclosure, fiduciary misdealing and bribery) and the main obstacles to claiming rescission—affirmation, the intervention of third‑party rights and the impossibility of restitution. For further guidance on rescission in the context of misrepresentation, see Practice Note: Misrepresentation—rescission as a remedy. There are many ways in which a contract may reach its end; see: Terminating contracts—how and when a contract ends—overview for a brief and accessible summary, with links to the related further practical guidance, including Practice Note: Termination and expiry of contracts. For a table
What is a res judicata? A res judicata is a determination by a court or tribunal with jurisdiction over the cause of action and the parties, which finally disposes of the issues decided so they cannot be litigated again by those bound, save on appeal. Final judgments entered by default or by consent fall within this concept, whereas rulings on purely procedural points and any decision lacking finality do not. The doctrine’s aim is to bring litigation to an end and shield parties from being harassed by the same dispute twice. in personam—binds the parties and their privies in rem—binds all persons, privy or otherwise (ie a judgment binding the whole world) A party may rely on res judicata: as an estoppel to defeat an opponent’s claim or defence; and/or as the basis of their own claim or
The offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent can be tried solely in the Crown Court on indictment. Elements of the offence Under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (OATPA 1861), the prosecution must establish that the defendant unlawfully and maliciously: wounded with the intention of causing GBH, or caused GBH with that intention, or wounded intending to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of any person, or caused GBH intending to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of any person ‘Unlawfully’ and ‘maliciously’ Unlawfully The wounding or causing of GBH must be unlawful. Such conduct may be lawful if used: in self-defence in defence of another in defence of property for the prevention of crime where the victim gave express or implied consent For further information on these defences, see below:
Most recent Practice notes
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the decision date of 24 May 2016 and is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline The CMA pursued an Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I CA98 investigation into Foster Refrigerator (a manufacturer), a division of ITW Ltd, regarding the alleged insertion into vertical agreements of a minimum advertised price for internet sales of commercial refrigeration products, curbing retailers’ ability to price below that level (case CE/9856-14). Latest developments On 24 May 2016, the CMA adopted an infringement decision and levied a £2,298,820 fine on ITW Ltd, owner of the Foster Refrigerator division. The penalty was reduced by 10% as ITW Ltd put in place a comprehensive compliance programme to train staff, and by a further 20% because ITW Ltd settled with the CMA, admitted liability and...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment dated 19 January 2016; it is no longer maintained. For further details, see: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. NOTE—appeal lodged by Toshiba at the Court of Justice in Case C‑180/16 Toshiba v Commission. Case facts Outline Appeals were brought before the General Court seeking annulment or a reduction of the fines arising from the Commission’s amended decision of 27 June 2012 (which amended the original decision of 24 January 2007). That decision found an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and re‑imposed fines of €56.79m and €74.82m on Toshiba and Mitsubishi Electric, respectively, for their alleged role in a cartel concerning the supply of gas‑insulated switchgear (‘ Switchgear cartel’). On 19 January 2016, the General Court dismissed the actions in full and accordingly confirmed the revised fines imposed by the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub captures the status as at the judgment date of 28 February 2013; it is not updated. For more, see: timeline, commentary, and related/pertinent cases Case facts Outline A reference was made at national level by the Portuguese Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa ( Lisbon Court of Appeal) to the Court of Justice, seeking a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU. The court asked, among other matters, whether the rules of a professional association—set out in a regulation and, specifically, establishing a mandatory training scheme for chartered accountants—are consistent with Article 101 TFEU......
NOTE—appeals lodged before the General Court in Cases T‑341/18, T‑342/18, T‑344/18 and T‑363/18 ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position as at the decision of 21 March 2018; it is not maintained. See timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts ARCHIVE 21/03/2018 Outline: European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into an alleged cartel in the electrolytic capacitors market (devices that store electrical energy) ( AT.40136). Latest developments On 21 March 2018, the Commission adopted an infringement decision against nine makers of aluminium and tantalum electrolytic capacitors, levying total fines of €253.935m for running a cartel to exchange sensitive information so as to coordinate future conduct and avoid price competition. Parties Manufacturers of electrolytic capacitors, all based in Japan: Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd ( Sanyo), a Panasonic Corporation subsidiary Elna Hitachi Chemical Holy Stone Matsuo NEC Tokin Nichicon Nippon Chemi- Con Rubycon A tenth, unidentified company received the Commission’s statement of objections, but in the end was not...
The notion of concerted practice set out in Article 101(1) TFEU empowers the European Commission ( Commission), national competition authorities, and national courts to forbid particular kinds of anti‑competitive conduct among undertakings that fall short of an agreement in this field. For an overview of Article 101(1) TFEU, see further, The prohibition on restrictive agreements, for present purposes. Concept of concerted practices: definition and underlying rationale Article 101 TFEU distinguishes between agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings (which we do not address here), and concerted practices. An agreement presupposes that the parties subscribe to a common plan that restricts, or is liable to restrict, their independent commercial conduct by determining how they will act or refrain from acting on the market. By contrast, a concerted practice captures undertakings that knowingly engage in collusive behaviour to lessen uncertainty in the...
ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. On 10 May 2022, the Commission introduced the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation 2022/720 ( VBER 2022), which superseded the earlier Vertical Restraints Block Regulation 330/2010 ( VBER 2010, also referred to as the VRBE in this Practice Note) with effect from 1 June 2022. This Practice Note was prepared for the VBER 2010. NOTE— The VBER 2010 expired on 31 May 2022 and was replaced by the VBER 2022 on 1 June 2022. Under Article 10 VBER 2022, a 12‑month transition (ending 31 May 2023) applied to pre‑existing vertical agreements in force on 31 May 2022 that complied with the exemption conditions under the VBER 2010 on that date but did not meet the exemption conditions under the VBER 2022. Accordingly, this Practice Note is provided for background only. For...
NOTE— ISU has appealed to the General Court in Case T‑93/18. ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position as at 8 December 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU examination of the International Skating Union’s ( ISU) eligibility rules, under which skaters may face permanent bans from ISU competitions for participating in events not approved by the ISU ( Case AT.40208). Outcome On 8 December 2017, the Commission adopted an infringement decision, concluding that the ISU’s rules violate Article 101 TFEU. The Commission ordered the ISU to end the unlawful conduct within 90 days, by repealing or revising its eligibility rules, and to abstain from implementing any measure with the same or an equivalent object or...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision dated 4 June 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline The Office of Rail and Road ( ORR) pursued an Article 102 TFEU/ Chapter II investigation into Freightliner Limited and Freightliner Group Limited, concerning arrangements with customers for the supply of deep sea container rail transport between certain ports and key inland destinations in Great Britain ( ORR Case No. 11/2013). The alleged abuse of dominance consisted of: exclusionary exclusive purchasing obligations minimum volume commitments loyalty rebates exclusivity-inducing rebates Latest developments On 4 June 2019, the ORR stated there were no grounds to re-open the investigation following the expiry of the commitments offered by Freightliner in April 2019. The ORR indicated it had observed positive changes in both...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the 15 January 2016 decision and is no longer maintained. See the timeline and commentary for more. Case facts Outline of the European Commission’s merger review into Ball’s planned purchase of Rexam (case number M.7567). There are horizontal overlaps in the EEA for producing and supplying beverage cans and aluminium bottles. Latest developments On 15 January 2016, the Commission cleared the deal subject to commitments. Ball must divest ten can body plants and two can end sites to a suitable purchaser. Ball’s UK sites: Rugby and Wrexham Ball’s German sites: Weissenthurm, Hassloch and Hermsdorf Ball’s Netherlands site: Oss Ball’s Poland site: Radomsko One of Ball’s two French sites: La Ciotat Rexam’s Austrian site: Enzesfeld One of Rexam’s two Spanish sites:...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the decision date of 21 January 2016; it is no longer maintained. For more, see: timeline, related/relevant cases and commentary. Case facts Outline A national reference from the Lithuanian court, Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas ( Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania), invited the Court of Justice, by way of Article 267 TFEU, to give a preliminary ruling clarifying which factors should be considered when assessing whether travel companies (agents) using a common computerised platform have infringed Article 101 TFEU. In particular, the referring court asks whether Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted to mean that participation in a common information system gives rise to a presumption that the participating undertakings knew, or ought to have known, of discount restrictions applied by that system and, therefore, implicitly consented to limit price competition between...
CASE HUB ( NOTE—appeal lodged by Qualcomm before the General Court in Case T- 235/18) ARCHIVED – this case hub captures the status as at the decision of 24 January 2018; it is not being updated. See also timeline, commentary and connected cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU inquiries into Qualcomm, assessing allegedly abusive exclusivity payments linked to baseband chipsets ( Case AT.40220). Latest development On 24 January 2018, the Commission adopted an infringement decision against Qualcomm, concluding it had misused its dominant position by granting substantial exclusivity payments to a key customer on condition it would not procure from rivals. The Commission levied a fine of €997,439,000 on Qualcomm. Parties Qualcomm, a US based company with its headquarters in San Diego ( California), designs and sells wireless telecommunications products and services from 157 sites across the globe. It is the world’s largest supplier of baseband...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this page captures the position as at the decision date of 5 August 2015; it is no longer maintained. For further details, see the full timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline CMA Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I investigation into Consultant Eye Surgeons Partnership ( CESP) Limited, a membership organisation of private consultant ophthalmologists, in relation to alleged anti-competitive exchanges of information and pricing agreements (case reference number CE/9784-13). The CMA issued its infringement decision on 05/08/2015 following that inquiry. Latest developments On 5 August 2015, the CMA delivered its infringement decision, imposing a fine of £382,500 in total on CESP for the infringements found. The fine was reduced from £500,000 due to: CESP agreeing to settle with the CMA, permitting a streamlined administrative procedure alongside CESP’s continued co-operation with the CMA (equating to a 15% reduction), and the adoption by CESP’s board...
This overview sets out European Commission decisions covering non in‑depth State aid reviews and completed State aid sector inquiries since 2016. For the latest in‑depth probes, see the EU State aid decisions—ongoing cases tracker. For appeals before the General Court, consult the General Court State aid appeals—ongoing cases tracker; for appeals before the Court of Justice, see the Court of Justice State aid appeals—ongoing cases tracker; and for national references on State aid before the Court of Justice, see the Court of Justice State aid national references—ongoing cases tracker. Non in-depth investigation—2025 March 2025 Criteria, modalities and procedures for the implementation of the District Contracts and the related aid measures concerning food districts, within the meaning of the provisions relating to District Contracts () — Italy; Sector: Agriculture, forestry, rural areas; Aid: Direct grant scheme until 31/12/2029; Decision: Did not raise...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 17 June 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases Case facts Outline The European Commission carried out an Article 101 TFEU investigation into a cartel in the markets for fuel‑powered parking heaters (which warm parked cars or lorries) and auxiliary heaters (which assist the heating system of a vehicle in use) ( AT.40055). Latest development On 17 June 2015, the Commission announced that it had adopted its enforcement decision, confirming that both defendants had reached a settlement with the Commission......
Case facts Outline This case hub is archived; it records the position as at the judgment dated 12/04/2013 and is no longer maintained. For further detail, see the timeline, commentary, and related/relevant cases. Appeals were brought before the General Court to annul the Commission’s decision of 16 July 2008, which prohibited 24 European collecting societies from restricting competition, in particular by constraining their ability to provide services to authors and commercial users outside their domestic territories. On 12 April 2013, the General Court annulled, for CISAC and 20 of the collecting societies concerned, the part of the decision finding a concerted practice, but dismissed the applicants’ actions against the conclusion that individual clauses in the agreements infringed Article 101(1) TFEU. The case addresses the management and licensing by collecting societies of authors’ public performance rights in musical works, assessing whether certain...
EU sector inquiries EU sector inquiries under Article 17 of Regulation 1/2003 are economy-wide examinations triggered when there are doubts that markets function properly, yet without signs of illegal conduct by specific firms. Such exercises survey whole industries to diagnose structural or behavioural issues affecting competition, even where no single business appears to have infringed the rules. In essence, they collect market information on a broad scale to understand whether conditions, pricing or trade flows point to malfunctioning dynamics. Their focus is sectoral, not on particular companies alone. Historically, their legal foundation lay in Article 12 of Regulation 17/62—chiefly an evidence-gathering device that saw little deployment. Only two were undertaken in the 1960s, covering margarine and brewing. The approach evolved in 1999 when the Commission launched a three-stage review of telecommunications, foreshadowing contemporary practice. Today, Regulation 1/2003 supplies the prevailing legal basis,...
Undertakings engaged in competition matters, including merger investigations, before the European Commission (the Commission) benefit from rights of defence that safeguard their interests throughout the process. Respect for these rights by the Commission is a core tenet of EU law and has been reinforced by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, which makes the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights ( CFR) legally binding and provides for the EU’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights ( ECHR). Together, these instruments strengthen the legal framework within which the Commission must act. Rights of defence in Commission antitrust proceedings Several procedural measures adopted by the Commission during antitrust proceedings may have a lasting adverse impact on undertakings’ rights of defence. In view of this, Regulation 1/2003 aims at striking an appropriate balance between: (i) the effective enforcement of EU antitrust rules and (ii) the...
The lists below cover completed competition appeals before the General Court under Article 101 TFEU. For ongoing General Court appeals, see General Court appeals—ongoing cases tracker. For active Court of Justice appeals, see Court of Justice appeals—ongoing cases tracker; for completed Court of Justice appeals on Article 101 TFEU, see Court of Justice Article 101 TFEU appeals—closed cases tracker. Case | Issues | Latest development 2026 Case T-682/24 Red Bull and Others v Commission — Action challenging the Commission’s failure to refund additional costs said to result from a disproportionate continuation of an inspection. See Application. • Judgment delivered—22/04/2026; appeal dismissed • Hearing—20/01/2026 • Lodged—31/12/2024 Case T-93/24 Lantmännen and Lantmännen Biorefineries v Commission — Appeal against the Commission’s decision in Ethanol benchmarks ( AT.40054), seeking to annul the infringement decision and the fine. See further, Application. • Judgment...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the abandonment of the transaction on 11 September 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission merger probe into the planned joint venture between Telia Sonera and Telenor ( Case M.7419). The deal posed horizontal overlaps mainly in Denmark’s mobile telecommunications market. Latest developments On 11 September 2015, Telenor and Telia Sonera stated they were calling off the combination of their Danish businesses and withdrawing the filing. The Commission confirmed the termination arose because the parties could not adequately resolve its concerns about the transaction. The remedies tabled failed to satisfy the Commission’s requirements, in particular the expectation of bringing a fourth competitor to the market. Parties Telia Sonera AB is a Sweden-based telecommunications operator, with shares listed on the Stockholm and Helsinki stock...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 17 July 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts ARCHIVE 17/07/2015 Outline The European Commission examined Cargill’s intended purchase of Archer Daniels Midland’s chocolate business. The review centred on competitive overlaps in the supply of industrial chocolate. Latest developments On 17 July 2015, the Commission cleared the deal subject to commitments. Under these binding remedies, Cargill will divest ADM’s industrial chocolate facility in Mannheim, Germany, to an appropriate acquirer. The Mannheim site is ADM’s largest industrial chocolate plant in Europe and its only operation of this kind in Germany. Parties Cargill is a US-based enterprise involved in the global production and sale of food, agricultural and risk management products and services, serving customers internationally. It employs around 140,000 people in 67 countries. For this...
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
