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
This February 2023 round-up highlights the yearly changes to merger control thresholds in Argentina, Canada and the Philippines, alongside the South Korean Competition Authority’s consultation on a draft bill to accelerate merger reviews. Argentina—annual revision to notification thresholds Argentina’s notification thresholds have been updated following the annual uplift in the value of adjustable units (the index applied to set these thresholds). Under the higher bars, a deal must be notified in Argentina when the parties’ combined Argentinian turnover exceeds ARS 16.255m (approximately €118.6m/ US$124.9m), up from ARS 8.345m, unless: the total value of the assets transferred in Argentina does not exceed ARS 3.251m (approximately €23.7m/ US$24.9m); the total consideration for the transaction in Argentina does not exceed ARS 3.251m (approximately €23.7m/ US$24.9m); and the acquirer’s group has not completed any other transaction in the same market in the previous 12 or 36 months...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the date of the final decision on 28 November 2024; it is no longer updated. See further: timeline. Case facts Outline of European Commission’s Article 101 TFEU probe into limits on cross-border sales of Pierre Cardin licensed clothing ( AT.40642). Latest development On 28 November 2024, the Commission adopted its infringement decision, imposing fines totalling €5.7m on two undertakings......
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 541/23 P Polwax v Commission ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 14 June 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Challenge to the Commission’s phase II ruling of 14 July 2020 granting conditional approval to PKN Orlen’s purchase of Grupa Lotos ( M.9014). Latest development On 25 January 2023, the General Court delivered its ruling, rejecting the action in full as unfounded. In essence, the General Court found, among other points, that the Commission’s market definition was sound; that the transaction could not have led to reduced supply in the slack wax market and, as a result, there was no loss of significant competitive pressure in that market nor any increase in market power (responding to Polwax’s assertion that Orlen was itself a...
CASE HUB See further, timeline Case facts Outline CMA Chapter II CA98 probe into Google’s behaviour concerning the distribution of apps on Android devices within the UK, with a focus in particular on Google Play’s rules that compel certain app developers to rely on Google Play’s proprietary billing system for in‑app purchases across their offerings. Latest developments On 21/08/2024, the CMA concluded it would be inappropriate to accept commitments proposed by Google to remedy the competition concerns. On the same day, the CMA formally closed the investigation on administrative priority grounds. In particular, the CMA signalled that the newly enacted Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 may offer a more suitable framework to address the type of conduct at issue. Parties Alphabet Inc, Google Ireland Limited, Google UK Limited and......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 14 September 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary Case facts Outline An appeal was lodged against the General Court’s ruling in Case T‑218/18, which in part allowed an action for annulment aimed at overturning the European Commission’s decision of 31 July 2017, concluding that German public financial support for Frankfurt‑ Hahn airport did not amount to unlawful State aid ( Case SA.45765). The appeal concerns public support by Germany to Frankfurt‑ Hahn airport. Latest developments On 14 September 2023, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, setting aside the General Court’s ruling and remitting the matter to that court for further consideration. It held, in particular, that the General Court failed in its duty to give adequate reasons and committed several errors of...
This outlines concluded European Union antitrust enforcement actions since 2008. For further details on concluded investigations, consult the Article 101 TFEU investigations—closed cases tracker and the Article 102 TFEU investigations—closed cases tracker. 2025 Parties and case: AT.40966 — Eurofield SAS; Unanime Sport SAS Industry sector: Synthetic turf Issues: Supply of incomplete information Decision: Infringement ruling issued—08/09/2025; €172,000 penalty imposed 2024 Parties and case Industry sector Issues Decision......
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Appeal in CA-2023-000581 & CA-2023-000582 ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 8 February 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Appeal by Bayerische Motoren Werke AG to the CAT, alongside a High Court application by Volkswagen AG for judicial review, both testing whether section 26 of the Competition Act 1998 authorises the CMA to compel them—being foreign‑domiciled companies with no UK presence—to respond to requests for information notices issued under that provision. As the same legal question arose in the two cases, the judicial review was allocated to the President of the CAT to decide while acting in his capacity as a Justice of the High Court. Latest development On 19 April 2021, the CAT and the High Court delivered a single...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment on 25 January 2023 and is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Referral back to the General Court followed the Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C‑823/18, which was an appeal against the General Court’s ruling in Case T‑640/16 that annulled the Commission’s amending decision of 11 September 2009 (readopted on 29 June 2016) concerning the heat stabilisers cartel ( AT.38589). Latest development On 25 January 2023, the General Court delivered its judgment dismissing the appeal in full. In particular, it concluded that the Commission had not: treated GEA unequally when compared with ACW or CPA; acted ultra vires by setting a date for payment of the fine that pre‑dated the Commission’s readopted decision; or erred in applying the 10% cap, including by declining to extend it to...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 30 November 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further the timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I inquiry into three money transfer companies concerning a competition law infringement for colluding on prices charged to customers in Glasgow for sending funds from the UK to Pakistan. Latest development On 30 November 2023, the FCA issued its infringement decision. All three undertakings acknowledged to the FCA that they had infringed competition law and obtained settlement reductions recognising resource savings to the FCA from bringing the investigation to an early close. The FCA levied penalties amounting to £154,300......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 4 October 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline Case facts Outline UK merger investigation into the planned acquisition by Hitachi Rail, Ltd of Thales SA’s Ground Transportation Systems business. The deal creates horizontal overlaps in the provision of mainline rail signalling and urban signalling systems. Latest developments On 4 October 2023, the CMA published its final report, concluding the transaction would be expected to give rise to an SLC in the supply of digital mainline signalling systems (and associated services) in Great Britain. The parties are the two biggest suppliers in the market. The market is highly concentrated, with only two other principal competitors ( Siemens and Alstom). There would be fewer credible bidders remaining for digital mainline signalling tenders. To address the SLC, the CMA decided the most...
CASE HUB Note—appeal lodged before the General Court in Case T- 503/25 ARCHIVED — this case hub records the position as at the decision of 12 July 2023 and is no longer being maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission merger review of Broadcom’s proposed acquisition of VMware ( M.10806). The transaction entails horizontal overlaps in the supply of network interface cards, fibre channel host-bus adapters and storage adapters. Latest developments On 12 July 2023, the Commission cleared the deal subject to commitments. The Commission was concerned Broadcom would have the ability and incentive to foreclose Marvell, the sole rival in the market for FC HBAs, by limiting or degrading interoperability between VMware’s server virtualisation software and Marvell’s hardware. To address these issues, Broadcom offered: guaranteed access to the interoperability application programming interfaces, as well as the materials, tools and technical support required for...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Case T- 57/24 ARCHIVED – this archived case hub captures the status as at the final decision of 22 November 2023; it is no longer updated. See further: timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU inquiry into the sharing of commercially sensitive information and the coordination of trading/pricing strategies in the Euro-denominated bonds market ( Case AT.40512). Latest development On 22 November 2023, the Commission adopted an infringement decision and imposed fines totalling €26.6m on Rabobank. DB cooperated with the Commission under its 2006 Leniency Notice and, by revealing the cartel’s existence, secured full immunity from fines (thereby avoiding a penalty of nearly €156m). Parties Deutsche Bank ( DB): DB is one of the world’s leading financial service providers. Rabobank: Rabobank is a Dutch multinational banking and financial services...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the 9 June 2023 decision and is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission merger inquiry into the planned acquisition of Lagardère S. A. by Vivendi S. E. ( M.10433). The deal entails horizontal overlaps in the markets for book and magazine publishing. Latest developments On 9 June 2023, the Commission approved the transaction subject to commitments. It accepted a remedies package from Vivendi S. E. to address the Commission’s competition concerns. Parties Vivendi S. E ( Vivendi): A French global media and entertainment group operating across multiple markets through its subsidiaries: in television and cinema ( Canal+ Group), book publishing ( Editis), magazines ( Prisma Media), video games ( Gameloft), and advertising ( Havas Group). Vivendi is controlled by the Bolloré group, a worldwide company active in three main areas:...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This hub captures the position as at the decision date of 28 November 2022 and is not being updated. For more detail, see the timeline. Case facts Outline: European Commission Article 101 TFEU probe into a purchasing cartel in the styrene monomer merchant market ( AT.40547). Latest development On 28 November 2022, following settlements by five companies that acknowledged participation, the Commission adopted an infringement decision. Aggregate penalties of €157m were applied. Total fines per company were: INEOS — no fine (due to immunity) Synthos — €32,505,000 (including a 40% reduction for ...)...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 10 November 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline An appeal was brought against the General Court’s judgment in Case T‑561/18, which had partly upheld an action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 28 May 2018. That decision had endorsed compensation granted by Denmark to Post Danmark for meeting its universal postal service obligations in 2017–2019 as being compatible with the State aid rules ( SA.4707). Latest developments On 10 November 2022, the Court of Justice delivered its ruling dismissing the appeal in full. It held that none of the grounds advanced by the appellants demonstrated any error of law by the General Court or any distortion of the evidence. The appellants’ submissions were either without merit or...
ARCHIVED — this case hub captures the position as at the judgment dated 13 July 2023; it is no longer being maintained. CASE HUB See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal challenging the General Court’s judgment in Case T-376/20 P, which upheld an action for annulment of the Commission’s 2016 decision blocking the proposed acquisition of Telefonica plc ( O2) by Hutchinson 3G UK Investments Limited ( Three) ( Case M.7612). Outcome On 13 July 2023, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, allowing the appeal against the General Court’s ruling, setting that judgment aside and sending the case back to the General Court for a fresh ruling......
A Block Exemption Regulation ( Block Exemption) is a measure issued by the European Commission ( Commission) that furnishes a legal footing for restraints which would otherwise fall foul of the ban in Article 101(1) TFEU, provided such restraints sit within that Block Exemption’s scope. Every Block Exemption rests on the assumption that any restrictive arrangement within its reach satisfies the four criteria in Article 101(3) TFEU required to obtain an individual derogation from Article 101(1) TFEU (see also, Introduction to the application of Article 101 TFEU to vertical agreements, Article 101(1) TFEU—the prohibition on restrictive agreements, and Individual exemptions under Article 101(3) TFEU). Accordingly, each Block Exemption Regulation establishes a safe harbour, shielding restrictive practices from legal challenge under Article 101 TFEU. The previous Vertical Agreement Block Exemption Regulation 330/2010 ( VBER 2010), which lapsed on 31 May 2022 (as well as...
1. What is the applicable legislation? There is no overarching law specifically established to regulate foreign investment in Hong Kong. 2. Which government or other body (or bodies) reviews foreign investments? Hong Kong currently has no single, dedicated authority formally appointed to supervise foreign investment. 3. What is the scope of the foreign investment regime? Does it only apply to specific sectors or types of investors (eg foreign or non- EU / non- WTO)? Are there specific rules for certain types of investors (eg state-owned enterprises)? Although foreign investment is generally unrestricted in Hong Kong, foreign shareholding in the broadcasting (television and sound) sector is subject to particular limits, and notifications relating to foreign investment may, in some cases, be required. There are no constraints on the categories of investors, and no special rules apply to specific investor types, including state-owned...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position at the decision date of 15 December 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Summary of a UK merger investigation into Sika AG’s proposed acquisition of MBCC. The deal featured horizontal overlaps in the supply of chemical admixtures used within the construction sector. Latest developments On 15 December 2022, the CMA published its final report, finding that the transaction gives rise to a SLC in the supply of chemical admixtures for cement, concrete and wet mortar in the UK. To resolve the SLC, the parties offered a partial divestiture, involving the sale to a single purchaser of MBCC’s chemical admixtures business in the UK, across Europe and multiple other countries (including its central R& D assets). Parties Sika AG ( Sika): a Swiss-based multinational speciality company active across the...
This Practice Note monitors the ongoing revision of EU block exemption rules and related guidance, including: the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation ( VBER) and its Vertical Guidelines; the Research and Developments Block Exemption Regulation ( R& D Block Exemption Regulation) and the Specialisation Block Exemption Regulation, together known as the Horizontal Block Exemption Regulations ( HBERs), with the accompanying Horizontal Guidelines; the Motor Vehicles Block Exemption Regulation ( MVBER); the Liner Shipping Consortia Block Exemption Regulation ( CBER); and the Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation ( TTBER). It does not address block exemption regulations for State aid. For UK legislation on block exemptions and live policy work, see Practice Note: UK block exemptions revision—tracker. For EU competition law legislation, guidance and other policy developments in train, see Practice Note: EU competition horizon scanning—2025 and...
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
