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 captures the position as at the decision dated 17 October 2013 and is no longer updated. For more detail, see the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline UK merger inquiry into a planned merger between two NHS foundation trusts serving Poole and Bournemouth and Christchurch. Latest developments On 17 October 2013, the CC blocked the merger. In its final report, the CC dismissed the parties’ efficiency arguments, finding the evidence inadequate to substantiate them. It also considered that the proposed behavioural remedy monitoring, and assurances on the merged trust’s quality, would not be effective. The CC therefore determined that prohibition was the only remedy that would work. Parties The Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch NHS Foundation Trust ( RBCH) and Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust ( PH). Both organisations deliver a range of hospital and community services to patients across Dorset,...
CASE HUB (appeal lodged in Global Radio Holdings v Competition Commission) ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 21 May 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline: A UK merger probe into Global Radio’s proposed purchase of GMG Radio Holdings, later rebranded as Real and Smooth Radio. Latest developments On 21 May 2013, the Competition Commission published its final report, approving the deal subject to remedies. Global was instructed to dispose of certain Real & Smooth assets, or alternative Global stations, across seven UK areas: East Midlands Cardiff North Wales Greater Manchester and the North West The North East South and West Yorkshire Central Scotland Final undertakings giving effect to the remedies were concluded on 9 February 2014. Global sold seven stations to...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub shows the position as at decision date of 9 July 2013; it is no longer maintained. See the timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline UK merger investigation into the proposed acquisition by AG Barr of Britvic plc. Latest developments On 9 July 2013, the Competition Commission published its final report and granted unconditional clearance. Since the CC’s clearance decision, Barr has withdrawn its plan to purchase Britvic. Parties AG Barr plc ( Barr) and Britvic plc ( Britvic) The parties supply a range of carbonated and non-carbonated soft drinks brands. Barr’s brands include Orangina, KA, Rubicon and IRN- BRU Britvic’s brands include Robinsons, Fruit Shoot, Tango and Pepsi ......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the decision date of 29 April 2014; it is no longer maintained. See the timeline, commentary and related cases for more... Case facts Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU investigation into Motorola (case numbers COMP/39.985 and COMP/39.986)... Latest developments On 29 April 2014, the Commission adopted an infringement decision, concluding that Motorola breached Article 102 TFEU. No fine was imposed because there is no case law from the EU courts on the legality of SEP-based injunctions under Article 102 TFEU, and national courts in EU Member States have reached differing conclusions on this issue. Motorola was instructed to remove the adverse effects arising from its violation of Article 102 TFEU. The Commission determined that Motorola abused its dominant position by both seeking and enforcing an injunction against Apple based on a SEP it had committed to licence on FRAND...
ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the decision date of 24 May 2018; it is no longer updated and remains unmaintained accordingly. NOTE An appeal was lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C—255/22 P. See further, timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline The European Commission Article 102 TFEU investigation into Gazprom concerning the upstream gas supplies across Central and Eastern Europe (case number AT.39816). Latest development On 24 May 2018, the Commission accepted commitments from Gazprom under Article 9......
CASE HUB (appeals lodged by Deutsche Bahn at the General Court in Cases T- 289/11, T- 290/11 and T- 521/11) ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision of 18 December 2013 and is no longer being maintained. For further material, see the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts ARCHIVE 08/04/2016 Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU inquiry into Deutsche Bahn (case references below). The Commission accepted commitments from Deutsche Bahn on 18/12/2013. COMP/39.915 COMP/39.731 COMP/39.678 Latest developments On 8 April 2016, after new rivals entered the market, the Commission brought the commitments to an early close. Within 18 months of their adoption, several energy suppliers had moved into the traction current segment; in 2015 they provided over half of the combined traction current demand of railway operators other than Deutsche Bahn. The commitments contained a break clause,...
CASE HUB ( ARCHIVE 10/04/2013) ARCHIVED – this case hub preserves the position as at the decision dated 10 April 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further the timeline, the commentary, and the related cases. Case facts Outline: European Commission Article 102 TFEU inquiry concerning CEZ (case number COMP/39.727). The Commission accepted commitments on 10/04/2013. Latest developments On 10 April 2013, the Commission accepted commitments from CEZ......
CASE HUB ( Appeals lodged at the General Court in Cases T- 460/13 ( Sun Pharma), T- 467/13 ( Arrow), T- 469/13 ( Generics UK), T- 470/13 ( Merck), T- 471/13 ( Xellia) and T- 472/13 ( Lundbeck)–see Cases T- 472/13 Lundbeck v Commission, et al ( Pay-for-delay) [ Archived]) ARCHIVED – this case hub, preserved as of the decision dated 19 June 2013, captures the position then and is no longer actively maintained. See timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts An Article 101 TFEU investigation by the European Commission concerning Lundbeck and others regarding Citalopram (case reference COMP/39.226). Latest development On 19 June 2013, the Commission adopted its decision, imposing fines of €146m......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 23 May 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline: The European Commission conducted an Article 101 TFEU inquiry into the joint venture involving Lufthansa, United Airlines and Air Canada (case COMP/39.595). On 23/05/2013, the Commission accepted binding commitments proposed by the parties. Latest developments The Commission approved the undertakings offered. In particular, the parties committed to: Make available take-off and landing slots at Frankfurt, and at either JFK or Newark, both serving New York. Conclude arrangements enabling rivals to sell seats on the parties’ services and to access onward connections. Provide data on their collaboration so the evolving impact of Star Alliance can be monitored over time. These measures were designed to address competition concerns while allowing the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision dated 6 March 2013; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline of the European Commission’s Article 102 TFEU investigation into Microsoft for non-compliance with commitments (case number COMP/39.530). Latest developments The European Commission imposed a €561m fine on Microsoft for failing to honour the 2009 commitments. The scale of the penalty highlights the seriousness of Microsoft’s breach and the Commission’s objective that the sanction operate as a deterrent......
CASE HUB Appeals were filed at the General Court in Cases T-91/13 ( LG Electronics), T-92/13 ( Philips), T-104/13 ( Toshiba), T-84/13 ( Samsung) and T-82/13 ( Panasonic) – see Cases T-82/13 Panasonic and MT Picture Display v Commission, et al. ARCHIVED – this case hub, now archived, records the position as at the decision dated 5 December 2012; it is no longer being maintained. See the timeline for further details......
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Case T‑74/21 ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 26 November 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited and its subsidiary Cephalon Inc., regarding a pay‑for‑delay arrangement relating to the Modafinil sleep‑disorder medicine (case number AT.39686). Latest development On 26 November 2020, the Commission adopted an infringement decision against Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited and Cephalon Inc., imposing combined fines of €60.5m for infringing Article 101 TFEU. The decision concerned a ‘pay‑delay’ deal by which Teva undertook not to introduce a cheaper generic of Cephalon’s Modafinil for sleep disorders after patent expiry, in exchange for cash payments and additional...
NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in Germany and throughout the world are met, see further: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the German merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Germany? Since the 11th Amendment to the Act against Restraints of Competition ( Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen) ( ARC) entered into force on 7 November 2023, there have been no material revisions to the German merger control framework. That amendment, among other measures, lowered the standard thresholds triggering a filing obligation (see further: Question 4). No fresh initiatives have been announced—still less any draft bill—heralding another reform. The Coalition Agreement of the current governing parties, which sets the programme through to the next regular federal election in autumn 2029, likewise does not anticipate a new overhaul. In...
European Commission investigations The European Commission ( Commission) examines indications or allegations of anti-competitive behaviour by companies that affect more than one EU Member State—for instance, international price-fixing cartels and other collusive practices prohibited by Article 101(1) TFEU, or situations where a company seems to misuse a dominant position contrary to Article 102 TFEU. Note—criminal action against individuals can be pursued in some Member States, but not by the Commission... Investigations may begin in one of four ways: an implicated party coming forward as a whistleblower, a complaint submitted by a third party, the Commission obtaining market intelligence suggesting a breach of competition law—for example, press reports or informal customer complaints, or the Commission identifying suspected infringements during a sector inquiry (see EU Sector...
This monitors and distils concluded EU enforcement measures connected to the EU’s Digital Markets Act ( DMA). For details and context on the DMA via the ordinary legislative process, please consult: EU Digital Markets Act—progress tracker. For all ongoing......
Introduction Cross-border transactions now encounter greater unpredictability and risk of delay than ever. Only a few decades ago, companies undertaking international deals had to notify just a small set of competition authorities, prompted by relatively objective filing criteria. As competition enforcement expanded, so did filing jurisdictions and potential notification duties, with the result that major cross-border transactions could demand upwards of 40 filings, often triggered by less certain thresholds—such as those linked to a target’s market share in a specific jurisdiction. However demanding that coordination was, it is modest compared with the present swell of uncertainty facing businesses engaged in cross-border transactions. This rising uncertainty is fuelled by two overlapping developments: one within global competition enforcement and another driven by new regimes reviewing foreign direct investment ( FDI). In competition enforcement, ostensibly ‘voluntary’ systems, including those in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, are...
Australia— ACCC publishes guidance on the transition to a new merger control regime and consults on draft merger assessment guidelines This month has seen the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission release three sets of guidance ahead of the commencement of Australia’s new merger regime, as well as the annual amendments to merger control thresholds in Italy. Several developments followed: the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ( ACCC) issued three sets of guidelines in advance of the new Australian merger regime; and the Australian Treasury released an exposure draft for consultation, which sets out the merger notification thresholds announced on 10 October 2024. Transitional guidelines Over the next 12 months, Australia’s merger clearance process will be in a state of flux as the system shifts from the current voluntary approach, through a transition phase from 1 July 2025, to a mandatory regime from 1 January...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the final decision dated 21 March 2025 and is no longer maintained. See the timeline for further details. Case facts An outline of the CMA’s Chapter I investigation into the sharing of commercially sensitive information among five undertakings engaged in the production and broadcasting of sports content. Latest development On 21 March 2025, the CMA issued an infringement decision and levied fines totalling €4,240,356 on four companies. The penalties for each party were: BT (6 infringements from August 2014 to September 2021)—£1,738,453 (including a 15% leniency reduction and a 20% settlement reduction) IMG (6 infringements between April 2016 and October 2021)......
CASE HUB See further, timeline. Case facts Outline: Commission Digital Markets Act investigation into: (i) ’s rules on steering within Google Play; and (ii) self-preferencing on Google Search. Latest development On 19 March 2025, the Commission issued two sets of preliminary findings to , determining that: certain features and functions of Google Search give ’s own services preferential treatment over rivals, failing to ensure fully transparent, fair and non-discriminatory handling of third-party services as required by the DMA; and its app marketplace Google Play is not in full compliance with the DMA, because app developers are prevented from freely steering consumers to other channels where better offers are available......
This month brings the annual uplift to merger control thresholds in Argentina and Malawi, significant proposals to reshape Sweden’s merger rules, the announcement of turnover-based thresholds in the United Arab Emirates ( UAE) set to take effect on 31 March 2025, and new CMA merger control proposals in the UK aimed at fostering growth, investment and business confidence. Argentina—annual revision to notification thresholds Argentina has implemented revised notification thresholds following the yearly increase in the value of adjustable units (the index on which the thresholds are based). A filing is now required where the parties’ combined Argentinian turnover exceeds ARS 110.2bn (approximately €111.3m/ US$121.0m), up from ARS 50.6bn, unless: the value of the assets transferred in Argentina does not exceed ARS 22.0bn (approximately €22.2m/ US$24.2m) the total price payable in Argentina does not exceed ARS 22.0bn...
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
