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 records the position as at the judgment of 25 February 2021; it is no longer updated. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline An appeal was brought against the CMA’s decision of 4 March 2020 which concluded that Lexon ( UK) Limited had unlawfully exchanged commercially sensitive information concerning the supply of the anti-depressant Nortriptyline (50507.2). Latest development On 25 February 2021, the CAT handed down its judgment, dismissing the appeal in its entirety. The CMA rejected: (i) ground 1 of the appeal, holding that the law on infringement by object had been properly applied and that the identified information exchanges, by their content and nature, amounted to a concerted practice aimed at restricting competition; and (ii) ground 3 of the appeal relating to the penalty imposed by the CMA. Ground 2 (asserting that Lexon ( UK) Ltd had not...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the state of play as at the judgment of 25 February 2021 and is no longer updated. For further details, see the timeline. Case facts Outline Case C‑857/19, Slovak Telekom-a reference from Slovakia seeking guidance on whether, amongst other issues, Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU also covers administrative infringements consisting of abuse of a dominant position under Article 102 TFEU, where the Commission and a Member State authority have, independently and separately, imposed penalties in exercising their powers under Article 11(6) of Regulation 1/2003. Latest developments On 25 February 2021, the Court of Justice delivered its ruling, finding, inter alia, that Slovak Telekom-already held by the Commission to have abused a dominant position in relation to certain telecommunications services-could likewise be penalised by the Slovak competition authority for the same type of abuse...
1. What is the applicable legislation? The principal rules overseeing foreign direct investment ( FDI) in China are the Foreign Investment Law of the People’s Republic of China 2019 ( FIL 2019) together with its Implementing Regulations, both in force from 1 January 2020. These instruments superseded the former ‘ Three FIE Laws’, which had separately regulated equity joint ventures, contractual joint ventures and wholly foreign-owned enterprises. FIL 2019 creates a single, coherent legal regime for inbound investment and brings in a ‘ Pre-establishment National Treatment and Negative List’ approach, replacing the earlier approval-led model run by the Ministry of Commerce ( MOFCOM). Under this regime, projects not on the ‘ Negative List’ are treated on the same footing as domestic investment, while entries on the list remain subject to stated restrictions or bans. A companion ‘ Catalogue of Encouraged Industries for Foreign...
News feed tracking FDI legislative and policy updates This news feed tracks and distils major legislative and policy shifts affecting foreign direct investment ( FDI) frameworks worldwide. For granular rules by country, see the Multi-jurisdictional FDI guides. 2026 Date Jurisdiction Development 19/05/2026 - EU: European Parliament sets out its first-reading stance on the revamped EU FDI Screening Regulation. 16/03/2026 - Japan: The Cabinet approves a bill to amend the Economic Security Promotion Act for submission to parliament. 12/03/2026 - United Kingdom: Government publishes its response proposing updates to mandatory notification sectors under the NSI Act. 29/01/2026 - Ukraine: Government adopts a resolution establishing an Interagency Commission on the Screening of Foreign Direct Investment. 21/01/2026 - Italy: Law No. 4 of 15 January 2026 (in force from 21/01/2026) converts Decree Law No. 175/2025 ( Transition Decree 5.0) into law; notably, it amends...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 28 January 2021; it is no longer maintained. See the timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline An appeal was brought before the Court of Justice against the General Court’s ruling in Case T‑371/17, which had rejected an action to annul a formal request for information issued by the Commission during its Article 102 investigation into Qualcomm for alleged predatory pricing ( AT.39711). Latest development On 28 January 2021, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment and dismissed the appeal in full. It held, amongst other points, that the General Court was right to find the Commission’s request for information both necessary and proportionate. The Court of Justice also agreed that, after adopting a statement of objections, the Commission may obtain information needed to continue fact‑finding and to clarify evidence and...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment of 6 October 2021 and is no longer updated. See the timeline for more details. Case facts Outline Appeals were brought against the General Court’s judgments in Cases T-239/11, T-219/10, T-227/10, T-399/11, T-405/11 and T-406/11, which had rejected actions seeking annulment of the Commission decisions dated 28/10/2008 and 12/01/2008 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions carried out by Spain. Latest developments On 6 October 2021, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment and dismissed the appeals in full. In line with Advocate General Pitruzzella, the Court of Justice confirmed that the General Court had not erred in holding that the measures in question were...
This table sets out all completed investigations by Mauritius’ competition authority (the Competition Commission-the CC) into alleged cartels, anti‑competitive agreements and abuses of dominant positions since 2018. Only investigations that have been made public appear here. 2023 Investigations under ss41–43 of the Competition Act 2007 Fertilisers • Mauritius Chemical & Fertilizers Industry Ltd (now Ingenia): restrictive agreements covering price fixing, market allocation and bid‑rigging. Infringement decision issued on 18/01/2023; fines totalling RS 5.4m. Investigations under s46 of the Competition Act 2007 Repairs and maintenance of automobiles • Bamyris Motors: concern that Bamyris Motors abused a dominant position by imposing quotation fees. Commitments accepted on 13/04/2023. 2022 Investigations under ss41–43 of the Competition Act 2007 Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues......
This overview sets out every concluded investigation by New Zealand’s competition regulator, the Commerce Commission (the CC), into suspected cartels, anti-competitive agreements and misuse of dominance since 2018. Only matters that have been made public are included here. 2026 Investigations under section 27 of the Commerce Act Courier services - Aramex; Go Sweet Spot Issues: Cartel - price fixing and customer allocation Developments: High Court judgment - 04/03/2026; fines totalling $1.25m imposed Investigations under section 36 of the Commerce Act The CC has not yet issued any decisions under s 36 of the Commerce Act in 2026. 2025 Investigations under section 27 of the Commerce Act Construction - Unknown Issues: Cartel - bid-rigging ...
This table sets out all concluded inquiries by Mexico’s competition authority (the Comisión Federal de Competencia Económica- COFECE) into suspected cartels, anti-competitive arrangements and abuses of dominance since 2018. Note-only matters that have been made public appear in this table. 2024 Investigations under Article 53 of the Federal Law of Economic Competition Water proofing – Grupo Thermotek; Impac Issue: Restrictive agreement-price fixing Development: Infringement decision issued-03/10/2024; fines totalling MXN 237m imposed Diesel – 3 undertakings and 3 individuals (listed here) Issue: Restrictive agreement Development: Infringement decision issued-12/06/2024; fines totalling MXN 3.4m imposed ...
This table outlines all finalised inquiries by Malaysia’s competition regulator, the Malaysian Competition Commission ( My CC), into suspected cartels, anti-competitive arrangements and abuses of dominance since 2018. Note-only matters placed in the public domain appear here... 2025 Investigations under Chapter 1, section 4 of the Competition Act Facility-maintenance services Abadi Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.; Kota Lanskap Sdn. Bhd.; Usia Maintenance Sdn. Bhd. Issue: Restrictive agreements-bid rigging Development: Infringement decision announced-08/07/2025; fines totalling RM 2.98m imposed Public works 8 undertakings (listed here) Issue: Restrictive agreements-bid rigging ...
This table sets out all concluded investigations by Jersey’s competition authority (the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority-the JCRA) into suspected cartels, anti-competitive agreements, and abuses of dominant positions since 2011. Note-only inquiries placed in the public domain are reflected here. 2021 Investigations under Article 8 of the Competition ( Jersey) Law 2005 No decisions were made by the JCRA under Article 8 in 2021. Investigations under Article 16 of the Competition ( Jersey) Law 2005 No decisions were made by the JCRA under Article 16 in 2021. 2020 Investigations under Article 8 of the Competition ( Jersey) Law 2005 No decisions were made by the JCRA under Article 8 in 2020. Investigations under Article 16 of the Competition ( Jersey) Law 2005 No decisions were made by the JCRA under Article 16 in...
This table outlines all completed investigations by Canada’s competition authority (the Competition Bureau Canada- CBC) into suspected cartels, anti‑competitive arrangements and abuses of dominance since 2018. Note-only matters that are publicly reported are included... 2024 Investigations under section 45 the Competition Act 1985 Paving: Pavages Maska Inc - Restrictive agreement (bid rigging). Infringement decision issued on 23/05/2024; fines totalling $100,000 imposed Investigations under section 79 the Competition Act 1985 Real estate: Yukon Real Estate Association ( YREA) - Alleged abuse of dominant position via a rule requiring certain prospective members to reside in the Yukon for one year before joining YREA. Commitments accepted-26/04/2024 2023 Investigations under section 45 the Competition Act 1985 Shipping services: Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha; Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha - Restrictive agreement (bid rigging and price fixing). Infringement decision issued on 18/08/2023; fines totalling $1.96m imposed Municipal...
Bosnia & Herzegovina behavioural investigations-closed cases tracker This table provides an overview of all finalised probes by Bosnia & Herzegovina’s competition authority (the Council of Competition-the CC) into suspected cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominance since 2018. Only matters placed in the public domain appear here. 2024 Investigations under Article 4 of the Competition Law Public procurement of road rehabilitation works - undertakings unknown; restrictive agreements; infringement decision announced-08/11/2024; fines totalling KM 209,801 imposed. Public procurement of computer systems - 11 undertakings (listed here); restrictive agreements; infringement decision issued-07/11/2024; fines totalling KM 284,927 imposed. Investigations under Article 9 of the Competition Law District heating distribution and supply services - undertakings unknown; issue unknown; infringement decision announced-08/11/2024; fines totalling KM 27,500...
This overview sets out all concluded inquiries by Barbados’ competition authority, the Fair Trade Commission ( FTC), into alleged cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominant positions since 2010. Please note: only investigations that have been publicly disclosed are listed here 2025 Investigations under section 13 of the Fair Competition Act CAP 326C The FTC made no decisions under s13 in 2025. Investigations under section 16 of the Fair Competition Act CAP 326C No s16 determinations were issued by the FTC in 2025. 2024 Investigations under section 13 of the Fair Competition Act CAP 326C The FTC reached no decisions under s13 in 2024. Investigations under section 16 of the Fair Competition Act CAP 326C The FTC issued no decisions under s16 in 2024. 2023 Investigations under section 13 of the Fair Competition Act CAP 326C No decisions under s13 were delivered by the FTC in...
This table sets out all completed inquiries by the Armenian competition authority (the State Commission for the Protection of Economic Competition of the Republic of Armenia- SCPEC) into alleged cartels, anti‑competitive agreements and abuses of a dominant position since 2018. Only investigations placed in the public domain are included. 2021 Investigations under Article 5 of the The Law of the Republic of Armenia on Protection of Economic Competition In 2021, the SCPEC made no decisions under Article 5. Investigations under Article 6 of the The Law of the Republic of Armenia on Protection of Economic Competition Case name, companies under investigation and industry: Eggs - Araks Poultry Factory; Arzni Pedigree ITC; Ashtarak Egg Issues: It is alleged the three undertakings misused their dominant positions by unjustifiably raising prices......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment of 13 January 2021; it is no longer being maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Proceedings for annulment were brought before the General Court against the European Commission’s decision of 10 April 2018, which concluded that French support, provided as funding for training courses on the use of construction machinery, was not unlawful State aid ( SA.46897). Latest developments On 15 October 2020, the General Court delivered its judgment dismissing the appeal in full. It held, amongst other things, that the Commission did not err in finding that financing training courses in the use of construction machinery did not constitute State aid under Article 107 TFEU. Parties Applicants: Mr Bezouaoui HB Consultant Defendant: European Commission (the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the situation as at the decision of 9 July 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline of the European Commission’s merger investigation into Aon plc’s planned purchase of Willis Towers Watson ( M.9829). The deal raised issues of horizontal overlap in the provision of commercial broking services. Latest developments On 9 July 2021, the Commission approved the deal subject to commitments. To resolve its concerns, Aon proposed an extensive package of remedies, including selling key parts of Willis Trowers Watson’s operations to the international broker Arthur J. Gallagher, and disposing to an appropriate buyer of Aon’s entire German retirement benefits consulting and pension administration businesses, together with Aon’s German investment solutions unit. Parties Aon plc ( Aon): A publicly listed company incorporated in Ireland, based in London and listed on the New York Stock...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment of 20 May 2021 and is no longer maintained. For more information, see the timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Case C‑128/19, Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Catania- a national reference from Italy - sought clarification on whether, among other issues, an Italian law measure concerning payments by Sicilian local health authorities to owners of animals slaughtered due to infectious diseases amounts to unlawful State aid. Latest developments On 20 May 2021, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, holding that Italian compensation for farmers compelled to cull animals affected by infectious disease, and for the veterinary surgeons involved, must be notified to and assessed by the European Commission, unless an exemption applies under Regulation No 702/2014 declaring certain categories of aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors in rural areas in the...
CASE HUB NOTE-an appeal has been lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 127/21 P ARCHIVED -this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 16 December 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court challenging the European Commission’s decision to confer grandfathering rights over slots released as part of commitments under the EU Merger Regulation in Case M.6607 US Airways/ American Airlines. Latest development On 16 December 2020, the General Court delivered its judgment, dismissing the appeal. Parties Applicant: American Airlines ( AA) Defendant: European Commission Background The 2013 decision in US Airways/ American Airlines On 5 August 2013, following a phase I review, the Commission cleared the AA and US Airways merger subject to commitments. It found the deal would create a monopoly on the London–...
CASE HUB NOTE-appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 124/21 P ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment of 16 December 2020 and is no longer being updated. For additional materials, consult: timeline, commentary and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline An appeal was brought against the Commission’s decision of 8 December 2017, which found that ISU rules imposing stringent penalties on athletes taking part in competitions lacking ISU authorisation breached EU antitrust law ( AT.40208). Outcome On 16 December 2020, the General Court handed down its ruling, upholding the appeal in part. It confirmed the Commission’s characterisation of the ISU eligibility rules as a restriction of competition by object, while annulling aspects of the 2017 decision relating to the ISU’s arbitration...
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
