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 dated 21 February 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline European Commission inquiry into whether Hungary’s veto of VIG’s takeover of two Hungarian subsidiaries of the AEGON Group ( M.10102) amounts to a breach of Article 21 EUMR ( M.10494). Latest development On 21 February 2022, the Commission adopted its decision, finding that Hungary’s prohibition of VIG’s acquisition of two Hungarian AEGON entities infringed Article 21 EUMR. Parties AEGON Hungary Holding BV, AEGON Hungary Holding II VB, AEGON Poland/ Romania Holding BV and AEGON Turkey Holding BV (together, AEGON CEE): AEGON CEE comprises the Hungarian, Polish, Romanian and Turkish operations of the AEGON Group. It is active in life and non-life insurance, pension fund management, asset management services and related ancillary services. Vienna...
1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Gibraltar? The Competition Act 2020 came into force in Gibraltar on 1 January 2021 and serves as the principal statute for competition and merger control. It establishes the Gibraltar Competition and Markets Authority ( GCMA) for the purposes of certain mergers and grants it a range of functions and powers. The Act also makes provision for competition law and the abuse of dominant market positions in Gibraltar. Introducing a new merger control regime in Gibraltar—largely modelled on the Enterprise Act 2002 in the United Kingdom—the Act both creates the GCMA and appoints the Gibraltar Regulatory Authority ( GRA) as the designated competent authority to perform the GCMA’s functions, duties and...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived hub captures the position as at the decision date of 27 January 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline of the European Commission’s merger investigation into Meta’s (formerly Facebook) planned acquisition of Kustomer ( M.10262). The transaction features horizontal overlaps within the market for the supply of customer relationship management ( CRM) software. Latest developments On 27 January 2022, the Commission approved the proposed deal subject to commitments. It found that the transaction would create competition concerns in the market for the supply of CRM software, and in the market for the supply of customer service and support CRM software. The Commission concluded that, post-transaction, Meta would have both the capability and an economic incentive to pursue foreclosure strategies against Kustomer’s close competitors and new entrants, for instance by denying, limiting, or degrading access to...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeals lodged before the General Court in Cases T- 227/21, T- 23/22 and T- 755/21 ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position as at the decision date of 06/09/2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline: European Commission merger review concerning the acquisition by GRAIL, Inc. of Illumina, Inc. ( M.10188). The deal features a vertical overlap in the market for the development and supply of cancer detection tests based on next generation sequencing ( NGS). Latest developments On 6 September 2024, the Commission announced the withdrawal of its decision in M.10188 (and its decisions in M.10493, M.10483, M.10938 and M.10939) following the Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C-611/22. Parties Illumina, Inc. ( Illumina): a global genomics company, incorporated and headquartered in the US, primarily engaged in developing, manufacturing and...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 30 June 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline: The European Commission conducted an Article 101 TFEU inquiry into whether Insurance Ireland limited access to the Insurance Link database, potentially breaching Article 101 TFEU ( Case AT.40511). Latest development On 30 June 2022, the Commission accepted commitments offered by Aspen and consequently closed the investigation. Under these commitments, Insurance Ireland undertook to: separate eligibility for the Insurance Link information exchange from Insurance Ireland membership revise Insurance Link admission standards so they are fair, objective, transparent and non-discriminatory, and apply them consistently to all applicants, both in Ireland and across other Member States create a new, time-bound Insurance Link application process overseen by an operationally independent Application Officer with adequate seniority and...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment dated 12/05/2021; it is no longer updated. See further, timeline Case facts Case facts Outline An appeal from the CAT’s judgment of 13 November 2020, which rejected an appeal against the CMA’s decision refusing Facebook derogations from an IEO imposed in connection with Facebook’s completed acquisition of Giphy via a stock conversion by its wholly owned subsidiary, Tabby Acquisition. Latest developments On 13 May 2021, the Court of Appeal issued its judgment, dismissing the appeal in its entirety. Parties Applicant Facebook, Inc, a United States‑based company, is a social media conglomerate. Facebook UK Limited provides sales support, marketing services and engineering support to the Facebook group and acts as a reseller of advertising services to larger UK customers (together,...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment of 15 April 2021 and is no longer maintained. See the timeline and related/similar cases for further information. Case facts Outline Appeal brought before the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgment in Case T-523/15, which rejected an action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision concerning a cartel in retail food packaging trays ( AT.39563). Latest development On 15 April 2021, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment, dismissing the appeal in full. Parties Appellants: Italmobiliare Sp A, Sirap- Gema Sp A, Sirap France SAS, Petruzalek Gmb H, Petruzalek Kft., Petruzalek sro, Petruzalek sro (together, the Appellants) Defendant: European Commission (the Commission) Market(s) Retail food packaging trays. Rigid retail trays are produced from polystyrene foam or polypropylene. They are used to package food sold in shops or supermarkets, e.g. cheese, meat, fish or cake. While a...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C- 353/21, C- 321/21 and C- 320/21 ARCHIVED — this case hub, now archived, records the position as at the judgments of 14 April 2021 and is not being maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Ryanair filed actions for annulment before the General Court against European Commission decisions of 15 April 2020, 24 April and 18 May 2020 approving three State aid measures in Denmark, Sweden and Finland to assist airlines in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic ( Cases SA.56795, SA.57601 and SA.56809). Outline Case T- 378/20 Ryanair v Commission Case T- 379/20 Ryanair v Commission Case T- 388/20 Ryanair v Commission Latest developments On 14 April 2021, the General Court delivered three judgments dismissing each of Ryanair’s appeals in their entirety......
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the CAT in 1429/4/12/21 Archived This archived case hub captures the position as at the decision dated 30 November 2021; it is no longer updated. See the timeline. Case facts Summary: a UK merger inquiry into Facebook, Inc’s (now Meta Platforms Inc) completed purchase of Giphy, Inc. The deal created overlaps in digital advertising services and in the supply of GIFs. Latest developments On 4 February 2022, the CMA issued a second penalty notice against Facebook, Tabby Acquisition., and Facebook UK Limited, jointly and severally, for breaching the IEO. A combined fine of £1.5m was levied. Under the IEO, Facebook had to promptly notify the CMA of any ‘material changes’ to the business—such as departures of key staff—and obtain prior approval before rehiring or reallocating duties. Following the departure of three key employees and the redistribution of their...
This table sets out all completed investigations by Guernsey’s competition authority (the Guernsey Competition Regulatory Authority—the GCRA) into suspected cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominant positions since 2013. Note—only matters that have been made public appear here. 2023 Investigations under section 5 of the Competition ( Guernsey) Ordinance 2012 Optometric services — Unknown — Restrictive agreements — Investigation launched—17/05/2023 Investigations under section 1 of the Competition ( Guernsey) Ordinance 2012 The GCRA did not issue any decisions under section 1 in 2023. 2022 Investigations under section 5 of the Competition ( Guernsey) Ordinance 2012 The GCRA did not issue any decisions under section 5 in 2023. Investigations under section 1 of the Competition ( Guernsey) Ordinance 2012 The GCRA did not issue any decisions under section 1 in 2023. 2021 Investigations under section 5 of the Competition ( Guernsey) Ordinance 2012 Mobile networks — JT Group Limited and JT ( Guernsey) Limited; BTC Sure Group...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment dated 22 December 2020; it is no longer maintained. See also the timeline and commentary... Case facts Outline An appeal by FP Mc Cann Limited against the fine arising from the Competition and Markets Authority’s decision of 23 October 2019, which found that three undertakings, including FP Mc Cann Limited, had infringed the Chapter I prohibition of the Competition Act 1998 and Article 101 TFEU by participating in a cartel spanning Great Britain concerning the supply of certain precast concrete drainage products... For its role in an arrangement to fix or align prices and market shares, and to share information, for precast concrete drainage products, the CMA imposed a penalty of £25,449,676 on FP Mc Cann Limited... Latest development On 22 December 2020, the CAT delivered its judgment, unanimously dismissing FP Mc Cann...
Note—to check whether notification thresholds in Ghana and across the globe are met, please see: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Ghana? Ghana lacks a generally applicable merger control framework nationwide at present. There is likewise no overarching antitrust or competition statute in Ghana. Instead, sector‑specific legislation and their regulators advance fair competition, and, in particular industries, exercise merger oversight and related enforcement duties too. Before the 2024 Ghanaian general elections, the Ministry of Trade and Industry was reviewing a draft Competition Bill, intending to lay it before the previous administration’s Cabinet for approval thereafter. Since 2019, policy think tanks have pressed Government to prioritise enactment of the Competition Bill, arguing that competition legislation is indispensable to delivering phase 2 of the African...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 20 December 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU investigations concerning: Amazon Inc’s handling of commercially sensitive information obtained from independent retailers trading on its marketplace ( AT.40462); and allegations of favourable treatment for Amazon’s own retail offers and for marketplace sellers that rely on Amazon’s fulfilment and delivery services ( AT.40703). Latest development On 20 December 2022, the Commission accepted commitments from Amazon, thereby bringing both investigations to an end......
ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 30 September 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases Case facts Outline: The European Commission assessed suspected predatory behaviour by CD under Article 102 TFEU concerning rail passenger transport services, with particular attention to the Prague– Ostrava route in Czechia ( AT.40156). Latest development On 30 September 2022, the Commission reported that it had ended its inquiry. It determined that the material obtained did not adequately substantiate its earlier concerns......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment of 15 July 2021; it is no longer being updated. See the timeline for more... Case facts Outline Case C-453/19 Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission—an appeal brought against the General Court’s judgment in Case T-492/15, which found inadmissible an action seeking annulment of the Commission decision approving aid to Frankfurt Hahn airport and Ryanair ( Case SA.21121)... Latest development On 15 July 2021, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment, rejecting the appeal in its entirety... Parties Appellant: Deutsche Lufthansa ( LH) Defendant: European Commission (the Commission) Market(s) Airport services and scheduled passenger air transport... Background From 2002 to 2006, the Commission received complaints from several parties alleging that Ryanair plc ( Ryanair) and Flughafen- Hahn Gmbh, the operator of Frankfurt Hahn airport, had been granted unlawful State aid by Fraport AG (until 31 December 2008 the parent...
1. What is the applicable legislation? Foreign investment control in Germany is chiefly regulated by: Foreign Trade and Payments Act ( Außenwirtschaftsgesetz— AWG) Foreign Trade and Payments Ordinance ( Außenwirtschaftsverordnung— AWV) The AWG sets out the core framework for screening, covering the legal and procedural consequences of reviews, relevant deadlines, and penalties for violations. The AWV operationalises the AWG, notably specifying which categories of investments are generally reviewable and which face tighter scrutiny. Although both the AWG and AWV have undergone substantial reform in recent years, the AWV is revised more often, as the Federal Government may implement changes without parliament. The latest AWV amendment was adopted in December 2022. In practice, the Act on the Federal Office for Information Security ( Gesetz über das Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik— BSIG) and its subordinate Ordinance on the Identification of Critical...
This table provides an overview of all concluded inquiries by the French competition authority ( Autorité de la Concurrence— Ad C) into suspected cartels, anti-competitive arrangements and abuses of dominance ( Articles 101/102 TFEU) since 2018. Note—only matters disclosed publicly are reflected here... 2026 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/ Article L 420-1 of the French Commercial Code Distribution of organic products Companies: Synadis Bio; Greenweez; ITM Entreprises; Les Comptoirs de la Bio Issue: Restrictive agreement—brand allocation Development: Infringement decision issued—16/04/2026; fines totalling €12.7m Electrical cables Companies: Nexans; Sonepar Issue: Restrictive...
A discussion with Ami Paanajärvi, partner, and Juhani Matinlassi, senior associate, in the Helsinki office of Nordic law firm Roschier Attorneys Ltd., on key issues in foreign direct investment ( FDI) control in Finland. 1. What is the applicable legislation? This area is regulated by the Act on the Monitoring of Foreign Corporate Acquisitions in Finland (172/2012) (the MFCA). 2. Which government or other body (or bodies) reviews foreign investments? Reviews are carried out by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment ( MEAE). If the MEAE decides to refer a case, it goes to the Council of State, which is the only authority empowered to prohibit an acquisition. 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...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the decision date of 29 September 2020 and is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline An Article 101 TFEU investigation by the European Commission into two cartels covering supplies of car closure components—door modules, window regulators, and latching systems (latches and strikers)—to European vehicle manufacturers (the Daimler Group and the BMW Group) within the EEA ( AT.40299). The arrangements involved coordinating pricing behaviour and exchanging confidential information. Latest development On 29 September 2020, the Commission adopted an infringement decision after two car part suppliers settled with the Commission and acknowledged their participation in cartels concerning the supply of car closure systems to European car manufacturers (the Daimler Group and the BMW Group) in the EEA. Fines amounting to €18m were imposed. Magna also took part but obtained full immunity under the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision to accept commitments on 10 February 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline: The European Commission opened an Article 102 TFEU inquiry into Aspen, assessing whether it exploited a dominant position in various national markets by imposing excessive prices for the supply of off-patient cancer medicines ( AT.40394). Latest development On 10 February 2021, the Commission accepted Aspen’s commitments and, as a result, terminated its investigation. Aspen will cut prices across Europe for six cancer medicines by an average of about 73% (on average below the prices seen in 2012, ie before Aspen began raising them). These figures will act as the price cap for the next ten years and had already started to apply from October 2019. Aspen will secure the...
Popular documents
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews mechanisms used in settling litigation. A Tomlin order consists of a consent order paired with a schedule. It operates to stay proceedings on terms that have been agreed. The provisions contained in the schedule may remain confidential. This Practice Note describes the scope of confidentiality attaching to the schedule and sets out how it differs from a standard consent order. Sample wording for a Tomlin order is included, alongside links to precedents, as well as guidance on court approval. It also addresses varying, setting aside and enforcing a Tomlin order, including the considerations the court will take into account when handling applications for each. Further guidance is provided on interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the CPR; however, some courts and divisions impose very specific requirements for both drafting and approval, and for approaching the schedule and confidentiality issues. Accordingly, you must consider the particular rules and court guide provisions in the forum where your claim is proceeding when drawing up the Tomlin order...
Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Landlord) [ name of Tenant ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Tenant) [ [ name of Guarantor ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Guarantor) ] [ [ name of Mortgagee ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Mortgagee) ] Definitions Within this Deed, the terms below shall be interpreted as follows: [ Annual Rent • the annual sum reserved under the Lease; ] [ Insurance Rent • the Tenant’s share of the Landlord’s costs of insuring the Property (as set out in the Lease); ] Lease • the lease of the Property dated [ date ], entered into between (1) [ the Landlord OR [ name ...
I, [ name ], of [ address ], solemnly and sincerely state that: [ Matters to be verified, set out in numbered paragraphs ] I make this solemn statement in good conscience, believing it to be true, and pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. DECLARED at [ details ] this [ day ] day of [ month and year ] Before me ................................................................................ [ signature of the person before whom the declaration is made ] A [ commissioner for oaths OR [ solicitor OR [ insert other qualification ] ] authorised to administer oaths ]...
Discover more from LexisNexis
