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 hub records the position as at the decision dated 29 June 2015; it is no longer being updated. See the timeline for further details. Case facts Outline of the European Commission’s merger investigation into Siemens’ planned acquisition of Dresser- Rand ( Dresser) ( M.7429). The deal featured horizontal overlaps in the supply of turbo compressors within the oil and gas distribution market. After a phase II review, the Commission cleared the transaction unconditionally on 29/06/2015. Latest developments On 29 June 2015, following a phase II inquiry, the Commission formally approved the merger without any conditions. Parties Siemens and Dresser Siemens is a publicly listed German company headquartered in Munich. It provides a range of electrical products and services to customers through several business divisions. In relation to this deal, Siemens’ portfolio includes gas turbines, steam turbines, generators and compressors. Siemens also...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub records the position as at the judgment of 17 December 2014; it is not being updated and will not be updated further. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court seeking to set aside the Commission decision of 21 January 2011 refusing a complaint lodged by Si.mobil on 14 August 2009, which accused Mobitel of abusive conduct contrary to Article 102 TFEU, on the ground that a national competition authority was already seised of the matter. The case examines the Commission’s procedure and margin of discretion when handling competition complaints where national authorities within the European Competition Network are investigating the same concerns. Parties Applicant: Si.mobil telekomunikacijske storitve d.d ( Si.mobil) Defendant: European Commission Si.mobil is a Slovenian mobile network operator providing business and retail services to customers in Slovenia. Mobitel is a...
Note—to check whether notification thresholds in Hong Kong and worldwide are satisfied, please see: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Hong Kong's merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Hong Kong? Hong Kong established its first cross-sector competition framework through the enactment of the Competition Ordinance ( Cap 619). As the principal source of competition law in Hong Kong, the Ordinance became fully operative on 14 December 2015. The Hong Kong Competition Commission (the Commission) is the main authority tasked with enforcing the Ordinance. In the telecommunications sphere, the Office of the Communications Authority (the Communications Authority) exercises concurrent jurisdiction with the Commission over anti-competitive conduct by certain undertakings for merger control purposes. In practice, the Communications Authority leads on merger reviews and...
CASE HUB (appeals lodged at the General Court in Cases T- 241/12 ( Versalis) and T- 240/12 ( Eni)) See further, timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission investigation under Article 101 TFEU into the renewed imposition of fines relating to the synthetic rubber cartel ( Case AT.40032). Parties Eni Sp A ( Eni) and its subsidiary Versalis Sp A ( Versalis—formerly Polimeri Europa Sp A). Eni is the ultimate parent of the Eni Group. Activities in the relevant products were initially undertaken by Eni Chem Elastomeri Srl ( Elastomeri), indirectly controlled by Eni through Eni Chem Sp A ( Eni Chem). On 1 November 1997, Elastomeri was merged into Eni Chem. Eni held 99.97% of Eni Chem. On 1 January 2002, Eni Chem transferred its strategic chemical operations (including BR and ESBR) to its wholly owned subsidiary Polimeri Europa Sp A (now Versalis). Eni has exercised direct and full...
When a dominant undertaking can offer rebates to persuade customers to buy from it remains among the most intricate and disputed issues under Article 102 TFEU. Such discounts—common in everyday trading—can improve efficiency. Yet making rebates available to buyers of a dominant supplier can impede rivals from wooing those buyers, thereby shoring up the supplier’s market power. In theory, one can reconcile these aims by examining a scheme’s effects, but doing so generally entails detailed fact-finding, leaving businesses uncertain in advance whether a particular programme will breach the law. A long-standing debate concerns how far the European Commission ( Commission) may censure rebates by their very form, without more, or whether it must first show, in the case’s specific context, that they are liable to cause anti-competitive harm. Determining if, and in what situations, such incentives warrant condemnation lies at the core of...
Mergers assessment guidelines The Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA) may prohibit mergers that qualify for investigation under UK merger control where they are expected to bring about a substantial lessening of competition ( SLC). Broadly, there are two categories of merger: horizontal mergers — deals between businesses supplying competing products/services non-horizontal mergers — deals either between firms at different points in the supply chain (vertical mergers), or firms at the same level that do not compete (conglomerate mergers) On 18 March 2021, the CMA updated the way it assesses mergers (the Mergers assessment guidelines) to reflect major economic shifts since its 2010 guidance. In summary, the CMA has: addressed developments in digital markets and responded to recommendations in reports such as the March 2019 Furman Report and the May 2019 Lear Report incorporated case law and the CMA’s experience over the last...
Note—to check whether notification thresholds in the Faroe Islands and across the world are satisfied, see: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Faroese merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in the Faroe Islands? The latest amendment to the Faroese Competition Act (the Act) took effect on 26 March 2024, introducing filing fees. The Faroese Competition Authority ( FCA) generally applies the competition rules with reference to EU competition law and in alignment with EU merger control. The Faroe Islands have issued guidelines covering merger-related topics; at present, these guidelines are only available in Faroese and can be accessed via the FCA’s website. An English version of the Act exists, although it is outdated. To our knowledge, there are currently no specific ‘hot’...
NOTE—to check whether the notification thresholds in Georgia and across the world are satisfied, see Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Georgia? Merger control in Georgia is set out in the Law of Georgia on Competition ( Competition Act). In 2025, the Georgian merger control regime saw several changes, chiefly via amendments to Decree No. 39 of the Head of the Competition Agency on the Notification of Concentrations ( Decree 39). The key updates are: Article 3(1) of Decree 39 now sets out, with greater precision, the criteria for when a concentration must be notified to the Competition Agency; critically, the substantive notification thresholds are unchanged, with the intent being to clarify and streamline the drafting rather than to alter...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the decision date of 21 October 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into cartels in the Swiss franc interest rate derivatives sector ( Case COMP/39.924). The Commission identified two distinct infringements—one concerning bid-ask spreads and another relating to influencing the Swiss franc LIBOR interest rate. Settlements and fines for both infringements were announced on 21/10/2014. Parties RBS (active in both the Swiss franc LIBOR cartel and the bid-ask spreads cartel) JPMorgan (active in both the Swiss franc LIBOR cartel and the bid-ask spreads cartel) UBS (active in the bid-ask spreads cartel) Crédit Suisse (active in the bid-ask spreads cartel) Market(s) Swiss franc interest rate derivatives in the EEA. Derivatives are contracts traded on financial markets. They manage the risk of...
CASE HUB ( NOTE–appeals lodged) ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 15 October 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission proceedings under Article 102 TFEU examined suspected abuse of a dominant position in Slovakia’s broadband market. On 15/10/2014, the Commission adopted an infringement decision and levied total fines of €69.9m. The unlawful conduct comprised a refusal to supply and the implementation of a margin squeeze. Latest developments On 15 October 2014, the Commission delivered its infringement decision. It imposed a €38,838,000 fine on Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom for infringing Article 102 TFEU. Deutsche Telekom is jointly liable for this amount owing to its decisive influence over its subsidiary, Slovak Telekom. In addition, the Commission levied a further €31,070,000 penalty on Deutsche Telekom. This...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 30 March 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into Zimmer’s proposed acquisition of Biomet ( Case M.7265). Referred to phase II on 03/10/2014. The deal combines two leading designers and manufacturers of orthopaedic implants and related surgical products. Latest developments The Commission approved the transaction subject to commitments on 30 March 2015. The parties have committed to: Divest the Zimmer Unicondylar Knee implant and Biomet’s Discovery Elbow throughout the EEA Divest the Biomet Vanguard total knee system for primary and revision implants in Denmark and Sweden Grant the purchaser of the knee system an EEA-wide, non-exclusive licence to the rights and know-how currently used and needed to manufacture, market and sell an exact copy of the...
Liberty Global/ Corelio/ W& W/ De Vijver Media ( M.7194) [ Archived] CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this hub records the status as at the decision date of 24 February 2015 and is no longer updated. For more details, see the timeline, commentary and related/associated cases. Case facts Outline of the European Commission’s merger probe into Liberty Global’s proposed acquisition of joint control over De Vijver Media ( Case M.7194). The operation created both horizontal and vertical overlaps in the Flemish TV market: Liberty Global controls a prominent cable operator that also runs television channels, while De Vijver Media owns two TV channels. Latest developments On 24 February 2015, the Commission cleared the deal subject to commitments......
Note — To check whether notification thresholds in Eswatini ( Swaziland) and globally are satisfied, see: Where to Notify. Swaziland is now called Eswatini. Eswatini is a COMESA Member State (see Question 12 below). 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Eswatini merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Eswatini? The Eswatini Competition Commission ( ECC) has placed a Competition Bill, 2020 ( Draft Bill) on its website, intended for submission to the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Trade. The Draft Bill seeks to enhance the effectiveness, consistency, predictability, and transparency of competition law enforcement and administration in Eswatini. It also strives to reflect regional frameworks, including the COMESA Competition Regulations, and align with international best practice. To the best of our knowledge, the Draft Bill has not yet been...
Note— To check whether notification thresholds in Greenland and across the world are satisfied, see: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Greenland? Although Greenland sits within the Kingdom of Denmark, competition matters are governed locally, as commercial affairs are devolved. Merger control is primarily set out in the Consolidated Greenlandic Competition Act (the Act), which is based on the Danish Competition Act and thus aligned with EU competition principles. The principal distinctions from the Danish framework are its much lower notification thresholds and the newly introduced ‘situated’ criterion. For merger control, the Act is supplemented by an executive order on the Notification of Mergers and Executive Order No. 13 of 23 July 2015 concerning the Calculation of Turnover. In...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived hub captures the position as at the decision dated 9 January 2015 and is no longer updated. See also the timeline, commentary and related cases. Note: a later appeal was filed in the Court of Appeal—see SCOP v CMA and DFDS ( Court of Appeal)... Case facts Outline: Further appeals were brought by Eurotunnel and Société Coopérative de Production Sea France concerning Eurotunnel’s completed acquisition of Sea France assets. These appeals challenged the CMA’s Eurotunnel/ Sea France remittal decision, which affirmed the CMA’s jurisdiction and again barred Eurotunnel from running ferry services from Dover. On 9 January 2015 the CAT delivered its judgment and dismissed both appeals... Parties Groupe Eurotunnel, operator of the Channel Tunnel, acquired three Sea France ferries and other assets and now runs them on the Dover– Calais route under the My Ferry Link brand... Société...
The European Commission ( Commission) wields wide-ranging powers to investigate suspected anti-competitive behaviour (covering infringements of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, as well as alleged breaches of the EU Merger Regulation). It may, among other measures, carry out unannounced inspections at the premises of any undertaking within the EEA. Two types of inspections Article 20 of Regulation 1/2003 establishes two forms of ‘dawn raid’: inspections grounded in a binding decision, to which undertakings are legally obliged to submit; failure may result in being compelled to comply and exposure to penalties, and inspections based on written authorisation, which undertakings may decline without risking the imposition of penalties. Submission cannot be partial or conditional. The existence of a right to object does not mean that, if an undertaking consents, the inspection will be conducted any less rigorously than one ordered by decision. These two options are...
CASE HUB (date of decision–23/07/2014; appeal lodged at General Court in Case T-704/14 Marine Harvest v Commission) ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the situation as at the decision of 23 July 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further the timeline, commentary, and related/relevant cases. Case facts ARCHIVE 23/07/2014 Outline European Commission investigation into Marine Harvest’s failure to notify a merger and breach of the EU Merger Regulation standstill obligation, arising from its acquisition of a minority shareholding in, and control over, Morpol. Latest development On 23 July 2014 the Commission fined Marine Harvest €20m for obtaining control of Morpol without first securing clearance under the EU Merger Regulation. When setting the penalty, the Commission highlighted that Marine Harvest is a substantial European company with extensive prior experience and familiarity with EU merger control rules—accordingly, the Commission considered that Marine Harvest should have understood the...
Introduction Block exemption regulations offer broadly applicable safe harbours from the EU ban on anti-competitive agreements set out in Article 101(1) TFEU, provided the agreement meets the criteria of the relevant block exemption regulation. Each block exemption rests on the assumption that any restrictive agreement within its scope satisfies the four conditions in Article 101(3) TFEU required for an individual exemption from the application of Article 101(1) TFEU (see further, Article 101(1) TFEU—the prohibition on restrictive agreements and Individual exemptions under Article 101(3) TFEU). Accordingly, every block exemption regulation creates a safe harbour that shields restrictive arrangements from legal challenge under Article 101 TFEU. The former Research & Development Block Exemption Regulation ( EU) 1217/2010 ( R& D 2010), which expired on 30 June 2023, had applied since 1 January 2011. Following a review and engagement with stakeholders, the updated Research &...
At the start of a deal, from the outset, when gathering and assembling the relevant turnover data (and, thereafter, evaluating domestic threshold tests and any timing duties), appointed counsel should keep the following closely in view at all times. Turnover Rules on compiling, allocating (including geographic allocation) and calculating relevant turnover vary from the EU position, including within certain EU Member States and in key non- EU regimes, for example: in Austria—methodology can inflate the purchaser group's turnover and may ultimately determine whether a mandatory notification is triggered. For determining the relevant turnover, the turnover of all entities linked (directly or indirectly) to a party must be wholly (100%) attributed—ie the entire turnover of each connected subsidiary up the corporate chain in which there is a 25% shareholding or voting rights (even where control is absent) in Canada—for the purpose of testing the 'size of the...
Note—to check if notification thresholds in El Salvador and around the globe are reached, please refer to: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Salvadoran merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in El Salvador? The latest revisions to the merger framework occurred on 17 November 2021, when the Salvadoran Congress approved amendments to the Competition Law ( CL), subsequently published in the Official Gazette on 21 December 2021. The reform aimed to ensure observance of Article 166 of the Administrative Procedures Law ( LPA), which regulates administrative processes, and to align the CL with the LPA’s provisions. These changes introduced notable updates that equip the Superintendence of Competition ( SC) with greater tools to address illicit conduct and enhance legal certainty for economic agents; among them, the...
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
