Featured documents
This Practice Note outlines the law concerning criminal recklessness. The subjective test for recklessness Certain statutory and common law offences allow the prosecution to prove mens rea through ‘recklessness’. Put simply, recklessness is where the accused takes an unjustified risk that results in unlawful harm or damage. The House of Lords in R v G reaffirmed the subjective approach to recklessness. Before R v G, two distinct tests were used, depending on the offence charged: Subjective recklessness from R v Cunningham: the prosecution had to establish that the accused personally foresaw the risk. Objective recklessness from R v Caldwell: the prosecution only needed to show that the risk would have been obvious to a reasonable person, without proving the accused themselves foresaw it. In R v G, the House of Lords concluded that the objective test could operate unfairly where a defendant did not foresee the
This Practice Note examines the remedy of rescission, explaining when and in what manner a contract can be unwound (at common law, in equity and under statute) and thereby terminated and brought to an end. It covers the consequences and effects of rescission, the principal grounds for setting aside an agreement (misrepresentation, mistake, undue influence, duress, non‑disclosure, fiduciary misdealing and bribery) and the main obstacles to claiming rescission—affirmation, the intervention of third‑party rights and the impossibility of restitution. For further guidance on rescission in the context of misrepresentation, see Practice Note: Misrepresentation—rescission as a remedy. There are many ways in which a contract may reach its end; see: Terminating contracts—how and when a contract ends—overview for a brief and accessible summary, with links to the related further practical guidance, including Practice Note: Termination and expiry of contracts. For a table
What is a res judicata? A res judicata is a determination by a court or tribunal with jurisdiction over the cause of action and the parties, which finally disposes of the issues decided so they cannot be litigated again by those bound, save on appeal. Final judgments entered by default or by consent fall within this concept, whereas rulings on purely procedural points and any decision lacking finality do not. The doctrine’s aim is to bring litigation to an end and shield parties from being harassed by the same dispute twice. in personam—binds the parties and their privies in rem—binds all persons, privy or otherwise (ie a judgment binding the whole world) A party may rely on res judicata: as an estoppel to defeat an opponent’s claim or defence; and/or as the basis of their own claim or
The offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent can be tried solely in the Crown Court on indictment. Elements of the offence Under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (OATPA 1861), the prosecution must establish that the defendant unlawfully and maliciously: wounded with the intention of causing GBH, or caused GBH with that intention, or wounded intending to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of any person, or caused GBH intending to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of any person ‘Unlawfully’ and ‘maliciously’ Unlawfully The wounding or causing of GBH must be unlawful. Such conduct may be lawful if used: in self-defence in defence of another in defence of property for the prevention of crime where the victim gave express or implied consent For further information on these defences, see below:
Most recent Practice notes
The tables set out completed appeals brought by UK competition regulators before the Competition Appeal Tribunal, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, relating to market studies and market investigation references under the Enterprise Act 2002. For live appeals, see UK competition appeals—ongoing cases tracker. For closed market studies and market investigation references, see UK market studies and market investigation references—closed cases tracker. Appeals to the Competition Appeal Tribunal Case (case number): B& M European Value Retail S. A. v CMA (1301/6/12/18) Issues: Application for review under section 179(1) of the EA 2002 of the CMA decision dated 01/11/2018 designating B& M as a ‘ Designated Retailer’ pursuant to Part 2, Article 4(1)(b) of The Groceries ( Supply Chain Practices) Market Investigation Order 2009......
CASE HUB ( NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Case T- 604/18) ARCHIVED – this hub captures the status as at the 18 July 2018 decision and is no longer being maintained. See the timeline, commentary, and related cases. Case facts Outline: European Commission Article 102 TFEU probe into Google LLC ( Google) concerning exclusivity arrangements tied to the Android operating system ( Case AT.40099). Latest development On 18 July 2018, the European Commission delivered its final decision in the case against Google for abusing a dominant position through Android-related exclusivity agreements. The Commission imposed a €4.34bn fine on Google and its parent, Alphabet Inc. ( Alphabet). Google immediately stated its intention to appeal. Parties Google and Alphabet. Beyond its search service, Google owns the technology underpinning the Android smartphone operating platform and licences it to mobile handset manufacturers. In 2005, Google acquired the original creator of the Android mobile...
Scope of this Practice Note This Practice Note sets out the Financial Conduct Authority’s ( FCA’s) competition law powers under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 ( FSMA 2000), together with associated investigative tools and sanctions for infringements. It also examines the secondary objective on international competitiveness and growth, introduced for the FCA and the Prudential Regulation Authority ( PRA) by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 ( FSMA 2023). In addition, it summarises the FCA’s programme of market studies, calls for input and other competition-focused reviews... Overview of the FCA’s competition law powers Under FSMA 2000, the FCA holds a statutory objective to foster effective competition for the benefit of consumers across markets for regulated financial services and for services supplied by a recognised investment exchange. When pursuing its other two statutory aims—protecting consumers and safeguarding market integrity—it must likewise further...
Note—to verify whether notification thresholds in France and around the world are met, please refer to: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the French merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in France? In 2025, the French Competition Authority ( Autorité de la Concurrence, FCA) was particularly active in merger control, assessing a record 328 transactions, compared with 296 in 2024 and 266 in 2023. Proposed increase of merger control thresholds In April 2024, the former French economy minister, Bruno Le Maire, brought forward a draft bill aimed ‘to simplify economic life’......
CASE HUB ( NOTE—appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C‑806/19 P and C‑883/19 P ARCHIVED — this archived case hub captures the position as at the final decision of 28 June 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases.) Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU probe into a cartel in the Euro interest rate derivatives ( EIRD) market ( Case AT.39914). Latest developments On 28 June 2021, the Commission modified and re‑adopted its decisions concerning the euro interest rate derivatives cartel, following the General Court’s judgment of 24 September 2019, which confirmed HSBC’s involvement in the cartel but annulled the fine imposed on it because the Commission’s decision of 7 December 2016 was insufficiently reasoned in that respect. Parties Barclays Deutsche Bank Société Générale RBS Crédit Agricole HSBC JPMorgan...
CASE HUB ( Appeals filed at the General Court – see Case T- 58/14 Stührk Delikatessen Import v Commission ( Shrimps cartel) and Case T- 54/14 Goldfish and Others v Commission ( North Sea shrimps cartel)) ARCHIVED – this archived case hub captures the status as at the decision dated 27 November 2013; it is no longer updated. See timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU inquiry into a cartel in the North Sea shrimps market (case number AT.39633) Latest developments Fines amounting to €28m were levied on 27 November 2013......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this case hub reflects the position at the judgment date of 12 December 2013 and is no longer maintained Case facts Outline A national reference from the Italian Consiglio di Stato was sent to the Court of Justice under Article 267 TFEU, seeking a preliminary ruling to determine whether the principles of EU competition law, alongside Articles 101, 102 and 106 TFEU, prevent the imposition of tariffs for verification services undertaken by the società organismi di attestazione ( SOAs) Parties Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Autorità per la vigilanza sui contratti pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture Soa Nazionale Costruttori— Organismo di Attestazione Spa Consiglio di Stato ( Italy) Market(s) Certification of tenderers for participation in public procurement tenders in Italy......
This table catalogues all European Commission phase II merger inquiries concluded since 2000, together with other merger-related investigations (eg failure to notify) as well. For details on ongoing Commission merger cases, see EU mergers—ongoing cases tracker. For information on completed Commission phase I merger investigations, consult EU phase I mergers—closed cases tracker. For information on concluded EU merger enforcement actions, see EU mergers enforcement actions—closed cases tracker. For appeals before the General Court, see General Court appeals—ongoing cases tracker; for further details of appeals before the Court of Justice, please consult Court of Justice appeals—ongoing case tracker......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the decision date of 20 September 2016; it is no longer maintained. See the timeline and commentary for further detail. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU investigation concerning Altstoff Recycling Austria (case number AT.39759). Latest development On 15 October 2016, the Commission adopted its infringement decision. ARA was fined €6,015,000. The figure includes a 30% reduction for ARA’s cooperation, comprising: acknowledging the infringement ensuring the decision benefited from administrative efficiencies proposing the structural remedy (see below) The Commission also required a structural remedy to tackle the foreclosure concern, under which ARA will divest the portion of household collection infrastructure it owns. Proposed by ARA, this measure ensures ARA will no longer be in a position to block competitors’ access to that infrastructure, preventing any recurrence of the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub presents the position as at the judgment of 11 July 2013 and is no longer maintained. For further detail, see the timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline Spira brought an appeal before the General Court seeking the annulment of the Commission decision of 26 January 2007, which rejected Spira’s complaint against De Beers alleging breaches of Articles 81 and 82 EC in the rough diamond market, linked to De Beers’ use of distribution agreements referred to as Supplier of Choice ( SOC). Spira also sought to annul a later Commission decision, in which the Commission held that subsequent changes in circumstances—namely, the Court of First Instance judgment annulling the Commission decision in 2006 that made binding the commitments offered by De Beers—did not justify reopening or reconsidering the earlier decision that dismissed the applicant’s...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archive records the position as at the judgment dated 11 July 2013 and is no longer being updated. For additional detail, see the timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline Belgische Vereniging van handelaars in- en uitvoerders geslepen diamant ( BVGD) lodged an appeal before the General Court, seeking to annul the Commission decision of 26 January 2007 that dismissed BVGD’s complaint against De Beers. The complaint alleged infringements of Articles 81 and 82 EC in the rough diamond market, said to result from De Beers’ use of distribution agreements branded ‘ Supplier of Choice’ ( SOC)......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 10 July 2013; it is no longer maintained. This archived hub records the position as at the decision date of 10 July 2013 and is not maintained. Case facts Outline: European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into five cartels within the market for wire harnesses for cars (case number COMP/39.748). Latest development On 10 July 2013, the Commission handed down its infringement decision and levied fines totalling €141m. Sumitomo received immunity from fines after it brought the cartels to the Commission’s attention, admitted wrongdoing and co-operated fully......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 5 July 2013; it is no longer maintained. See the timeline and related cases for further details. Case facts Outline Appeals to the General Court were lodged challenging the Commission decision of 9 December 2009, which made binding, on Rambus, specified commitments concerning potentially abusive royalties, contrary to Article 102 TFEU, for the use of certain patents covering DRAM. An appeal was brought against the Commission decision of 15 January 2010, which rejected, for lack of EU interest, Hynix’s complaint alleging infringements by Rambus of Article 102 TFEU, relating to potentially abusive royalties for the use of DRAM-related patents......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 18 June 2013; it is no longer maintained. See the timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeals were brought before the General Court seeking annulment and reductions of the fines arising from the Commission decision of 25 June 2008, which found infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and imposed penalties of €1.7m and €1.6m on Société des Industries Chimiques du Fluor and Fluorsid Sp A/ Minmet (respectively) for their alleged involvement in a global aluminium fluoride cartel between 12 July 2000 and 31 December 2000. The case is noteworthy as it marked the first occasion the Commission applied point 18 of the 2006 Fines Guidelines, setting out a calculation approach for cartels spanning territories wider than the European Economic Area ( EEA). The...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub records the position as at the decision dated 9 October 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline of the European Commission’s merger investigation into the planned acquisition by Aegean Airlines of Olympic Air (second attempt) ( Case M.6796). Latest developments On 9 October 2013, the Commission cleared the transaction outright under the failing firm defence. It determined that, without the takeover, Olympic Air would be compelled to leave the market due to financial distress and that there was no credible alternative buyer for the entire business or any individual assets. Any loss of competition from Olympic ceasing to operate independently would not be caused by the merger. Accordingly, the Commission granted clearance on the basis of the ‘failing firm’ defence. Aegean Airlines tabled commitments in phase I, but these did not...
1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Indonesian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Guernsey? Note— To verify whether notification thresholds in Guernsey and across the globe are satisfied, please refer to: Where to Notify. Following the demerger of the Guernsey Competition and Regulatory Authority ( GCRA) and the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority on 1 July 2020, the States of Deliberation (the States) undertook a comprehensive and substantive evaluation of Guernsey’s competition framework, with particular emphasis on its merger control rules. The objective was to achieve closer alignment between Guernsey’s competition legislation and that of the European Union ( EU), and to address a range of potential enhancements to the mergers and acquisitions framework flagged by the GCRA and the island’s legal profession. As a...
CASE HUB ( NOTE—appeal lodged by AB Lietuvos geležinkeliai before the General Court in Case T- 814/17) ARCHIVED – this hub records the position as at the 2 October 2017 decision and is no longer maintained. For more information, consult the timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission investigation under Article 102 TFEU into AB Lietuvos geležinkeliai, the Lithuanian railway operator (case number AT.39813). Latest developments On 2 October 2017, the Commission adopted an infringement decision against LG and levied a €27,873,000 fine. LG was also directed to bring the infringement to an end and to refrain from any conduct having the same or an equivalent purpose or effect. Parties AB Lietuvos geležinkeliai ( LG), the incumbent state-owned rail company in Lithuania. Background The Commission formally initiated proceedings in March 2013, following dawn raids carried out in March 2011......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 12 December 2012; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission inquiry into the proposed takeover transaction of Orange Austria by Hutchison 3G ( Case M.6497). The Commission approved the deal subject to commitments on 12/12/2012. Parties Hutchison 3G ( H3G) and Orange Austria. H3G supplies mobile telecommunication services (voice, SMS and MMS), as well as mobile broadband and multimedia products across Austria. Orange Austria provides mobile telecommunication services (voice, SMS and MMS) and mobile broadband services across Austria too. Market(s) Mobile telecommunications in Austria......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 21 September 2012 and is no longer updated. For additional detail, consult the timeline, commentary and related cases materials. Case facts Outline European Commission merger review of Universal Music Group’s proposed purchase of EMI Music ( Case M.6458). The Commission approved the deal, subject to commitments, on 21/09/2012. Parties Universal Music Group and EMI’s recorded music division. Universal is the world’s foremost recorded music company. Its operations span scouting, developing and promoting artists, wholesale distribution of recorded music, digital retail, music publishing, artist management and event services. Universal is owned by Vivendi, an international media group. EMI’s recorded music arm covers discovering, developing and promoting artists and the wholesale of recorded music. EMI’s music publishing business was sold to a consortium led by Sony and Mubadala in April...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 27 February 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline: the European Commission reviewed Ryanair’s planned takeover of Aer Lingus for a third time ( Case M.6663). The transaction was prohibited by the Commission on 27/02/2013. Latest developments On 27 February 2013, the Commission prohibited the deal. Ryanair’s proposed remedies — divesting 43 routes with related brands, airport slots and aircraft leases to Flybe, plus an undertaking that British Airways would run London services for three years — did not dispel its competition concerns. The Commission found that Flybe lacked the capability to rival Ryanair, had no meaningful experience of the Irish market, was unfamiliar with the aircraft offered, and several routes conflicted with Flybe’s business model. Regarding the British Airways...
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
