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 NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Case T-590/20 ARCHIVED—this case hub records the position as at the decision of 14 July 2020; it is no longer being updated. See timeline and commentary for more Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU probe into a cartel involving purchases on the ethylene merchant market ( AT.40410) Latest development On 14 July 2020, the Commission adopted an infringement decision after four companies settled and accepted their role in the cartel. Aggregate penalties of €260.443m were imposed. Fines per company were: Westlake—no penalty (immunity granted) Orbia—€22,367,000 (including a 45% leniency reduction and a 10% settlement discount) Clariant—€155,769,000 (including a 30% leniency reduction and a 10% settlement discount) Celanese—€82,307,000 (including a 20% leniency reduction and a 10% settlement discount) Parties Westlake Chemical (hereafter, Westlake), a US-based company, is a global...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 1 July 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline Case facts Outline The CMA pursued a Chapter I CA98 investigation, alleging that Spire Healthcare Limited, its parent Spire Healthcare Group plc, and seven ophthalmologists contravened UK competition law by participating in unlawful price fixing ( Case 50782–1). Latest developments On 1 July 2020, the CMA delivered its infringement decision, determining that Spire Healthcare Limited, its parent Spire Healthcare Group, and seven consultant ophthalmologists had violated the Chapter I prohibition by engaging in unlawful price fixing. The CMA levied a fine of £1.2m in total, which incorporated a 20% reduction for settlement. One consultant ophthalmologist obtained immunity through the CMA’s leniency programme. Parties Spire Healthcare Limited ......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the 21 December 2020 decision date and is no longer maintained. See the timeline and commentary for more detail. Case facts Outline of the European Commission’s merger inquiry into the planned merger between Fiat Chrysler N. V. and Peugeot S. A. ( M.9730). The transaction entails horizontal overlaps in the light commercial vehicles market. Latest developments On 21 December 2020, the Commission approved the merger subject to commitments. To resolve its concerns, it accepted undertakings from the parties designed to enable entry and expansion, namely: Extending an existing cooperation agreement between PSA and Toyota Motor Europe for small light commercial vehicles, under which PSA builds the vehicle for sale by Toyota Motor Europe under the Toyota Motor Europe brand. Amending the ‘repair and maintenance’ agreements for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles between PSA, FCA and their...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This case hub reflects the position as at the decision date of 4 March 2024; it is not being maintained. See further timeline, related cases and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU investigation into Apple’s App Store rules and their effect on competition in music streaming ( AT.40437). Latest development On 4 March 2024, the Commission adopted an infringement decision and imposed a fine of more than €1.8bn for abuse of a dominant position in the market for distributing music streaming apps to i Phone and i Pad users (i OS users) via the App Store. The Commission concluded that Apple imposed restrictions on app developers that prevented them from informing i OS users about alternative, lower-priced music subscription services available outside the app. Parties Apple Inc ( Apple); Apple is a US based company. It designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and related...
This outlines ongoing and concluded director disqualification undertakings and orders made by the CMA since 2016. Ongoing cases seeking director disqualifications There are presently no ongoing cases seeking director disqualifications. Completed cases 2024 Prochlorpezarine tablets (50511-2) — Mr Pritesh Sonpal — Director disqualification order — Length: to be confirmed — CMA confirms it is no longer pursuing proceedings; asks High Court to dismiss the application—12/09/2024; Proceedings issued before the High Court—17/09/2022 — Case page Prochlorpezarine tablets (50511-2) — Mr Peter Butterfield — Director disqualification order — Length: to be confirmed — CMA confirms it is no longer pursuing proceedings; asks High Court to dismiss the application—12/09/2024; Proceedings issued before the High Court—17/09/2022 — Case page Prochlorpezarine tablets (50511-2) — Mr John Dawson — Director disqualification order — Length: to be confirmed — CMA confirms it is no longer pursuing...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 376/20 P ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment of 28 May 2020 and is no longer maintained. For more detail, see the timeline, commentary and related cases. An appeal was lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C‑376/20 P. Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court against the European Commission’s 2016 decision to block the proposed acquisition of Telefónica Europe plc by Hutchison 3G UK Investments Limited, taken under the EU Merger Regulation ( Case M.7612). Latest development On 28 May 2020, the General Court handed down its judgment, upholding the action and annulling the Commission’s prohibition decision. The court set aside the prohibition. The Commission’s analysis of unilateral (non-coordinated) effects contained multiple errors of law and appraisal and did not show, to a...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment dated 22 September 2020 and is no longer updated. See the timeline, related/similar cases and commentary. Case facts Outline Case C-594/18 P Austria v Commission—an appeal before the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgment in Case T-356/15, which had rejected an action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision. That decision found that revised UK measures to support the construction and operation of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant were compatible with State aid rules ( Case SA.34947). Latest development On 22 September 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, dismissing the appeal in its entirety. Parties Appellant: Republic of Austria ( Austria) Defendant: European Commission (the...
Below, the spreadsheet outlines details of commitments approved by the European...
CASE HUB Archived —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 5 November 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. NOTE—following the appeal lodged before the CAT in FNZ ( Australia) Bidco Pty Ltd v CMA, the matter was remitted to the CMA (see further, FNZ ( Australia) Bidco Pty Ltd/ GBST Holdings Limited (remittal investigation)). Case facts Outline UK merger review of the completed purchase by FNZ ( Australia) Bidco Pty Ltd of GBST Holdings Limited. The deal presents horizontal overlaps in the UK for solutions consisting of software and/or servicing to retail investment platforms. Latest developments On 5 November 2020, the CMA issued its phase 2 final report, concluding the merger has resulted, or could be expected to result, in an SLC due to horizontal unilateral effects in the supply of UK retail platform solutions....
The table beneath outlines information on breach rulings made by the European Commission under...
Coronavirus ( COVID-19) related antitrust investigations/claims Across the globe, competition authorities are adjusting practices to address the effects of the coronavirus ( COVID-19) pandemic. This tracker collates publicly available, COVID-19-related updates on antitrust investigations/claims, exceptions/exemptions, new legislation and State aid reviews. For an overview of merger control procedure changes in highlighted jurisdictions, see: MJ merger control—competition authorities and coronavirus ( COVID-19) status. Note—only developments within scope that are publicly disclosed are included; it is not an exhaustive or definitive source. Albania — Personal protection products; numerous pharmaceutical companies (listed here). Issue: price-gouging. Developments: infringement decision issued—15/10/2020; investigations launched—18/03/2020. Armenia — PCR tests; 11 undertakings. Issue: restrictive agreements. Developments: investigations launched—26/11/2021. Armenia — Medical gloves; unknown. Issue: price-gouging. Developments: investigation terminated—27/08/2020; investigations launched—27/05/2020. Armenia — Masks; unknown. Issue: price-gouging. Developments: investigation...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 11 March 2020; it is no longer maintained. For more, see the timeline and any relevant or related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T‑263/17, which upheld an action seeking annulment of the Commission decision ( SA.35388) concerning aid for establishing the Gydnia‑ Kosakowo airport. Latest developments On 11 March 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its ruling, setting aside the General Court’s judgment due to errors and referring the case back to the General Court. Parties Appellant: European Commission Respondents: Gmina Miasto Gdynia ( Gdynia) Port Lotniczy Gdynia‑ Kosakowo sp. z o.o ( Kosakowo) Background Gdynia and Kosakowo are two Polish municipalities. In July 2007, Gydnia and Kosakowo created, and owned 100% of, Port Lotniczy Gydnia Kosakowo ( PLGK) with the goal of converting the Gdynia‑ Oksywie military airport for...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub records the position as at the judgments of 4 March 2020 and is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeals against the General Court’s rulings in Cases T‑185/16 and T‑186/15, which dismissed actions seeking annulment of the Commission’s decisions in State aid Cases SA.35842 and SA.35843— PSO compensation relating to Buonotourist and CSTP Azienda della Mobilità. Latest developments On 4 March 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its judgments and dismissed the appeals in full. Parties Appellants: Buonotourist S.r. L. ( Buonotourist). A privately owned provider of local public transport services operating under regional and municipal concessions. In particular, throughout the period examined it managed a network of bus routes as concessionaire for the Italian region of Campania (the Region), covering around 1.8m km per year. Consorzio Salernitano Trasporti Pubblici Sp A ( CSTP). A...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 30 January 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline The European Commission conducted an Article 101 TFEU inquiry into vertical restraints affecting cross‑border sales of licensed merchandise displaying Minions, Jurassic World and other images and characters from NBCUniversal’s films. The practices were attributed to NBCUniversal and other entities within the Comcast group ( AT.40433). Latest development On 30 January 2020, the Commission adopted an infringement decision against NBCUniversal, imposing a €14,327,000 fine, following an ‘informal settlement’. The penalty concerned the application of vertical restrictions on cross‑border trade in licensed products featuring Minions, Jurassic World and other images and characters from NBCUniversal’s films, contrary to Article 101...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment of 6 June 2020 and is no longer being maintained. For further details, see: timeline, relevant/related cases and commentary. Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T‑216/15, which had upheld an action by Dôvera zdravotná poisťovňa challenging the Commission decision SA.23008. That decision concluded that SZP (a State‑owned health insurance company) had not received unlawful State aid via capital injections from Slovakia. Latest developments On 11 June 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, allowing the appeals brought by Slovakia and the Commission, thereby setting aside the General Court’s 2018 judgment. Parties Appellant: Slovakia European Commission (the Commission) Respondent: Dôvera zdravotná poisťovňa, a.s. ( DZP) Background Background In 1994, Slovakia’s health insurance framework shifted from a unitary system, with a single State‑owned health insurance company, to a pluralistic model in which public and...
CASE HUB This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 14 November 2019; it is no longer maintained. See also the timeline. Case facts Outline Case C‑585/17 Dilly’s Wellnesshotel—a preliminary reference from Austria requesting clarification on, amongst other matters, a modification to an approved aid scheme—where a Member State opts to cease using the approval of that aid in connection with a defined particular category of beneficiaries, and thereby simply reduces the amount of aid provided under an existing aid measure—constitutes a change to an aid scheme that falls under the duty to notify laid down in Article 108(3) TFEU......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 7 November 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court challenging the European Commission’s infringement decision on the car battery recycling cartel, seeking to set aside the finding and the penalty imposed ( Case AT.40018). Latest developments On 7 November 2019, the General Court delivered its judgment, agreeing that the Commission rightly held that Campine had joined an unlawful cartel. The Court also held that: the Commission failed to substantiate Campine’s participation for a 22-month period; and given Campine’s limited involvement, a larger reduction of the fine was warranted. As a result, the Court cut Campine’s fine from €8.1m to...
CASE HUB Archived — This archived case hub captures the position as at the date the transaction was abandoned on 2 February 2021 and is no longer being updated. See further: timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission merger review of Fincantieri’s proposed purchase of a 50% interest in Chantiers de l’ Atlantique ( Case M.9162). The deal raised horizontal overlaps in cruise shipbuilding markets. Latest developments On 2 February 2021, the notification to the Commission was abandoned and withdrawn. Parties Fincantieri S.p. A: An Italian shipbuilding group majority-owned by Cassa depositi e prestiti, itself majority-owned by the Italian State. Fincantieri focuses on designing and building merchant and military vessels and high‑tech offshore ships. It also serves shipowners and produces systems and components. Chantiers de l’ Atlantique ( CAT): A French shipbuilder majority-owned by the French State via the Agence des...
Services of general economic interest ( SGEI) The notion of ‘services of general economic interest’ is not expressly defined in the EU Treaties or in secondary legislation. Its contours are set out in Article 14 TFEU and, in particular, Article 106(2) TFEU, which provides that undertakings entrusted with an SGEI remain subject to the TFEU unless applying those rules would impede the particular task assigned. Further, the development of intra‑ Community trade must not be affected in a manner that runs counter to the EU’s interest. Protocol No 26 to the TFEU highlights the importance of SGEI and affirms the discretion of Member States in defining them. It also clarifies why there is no single EU definition: SGEI vary between Member States due to differing needs arising from distinct historical, geographical, cultural and social circumstances. The role of SGEI also evolves with...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the abandonment date of 27 February 2019; it is no longer being updated. For more detail, see the timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline of the UK merger inquiry into the proposed purchase by Experian Limited of Credit Laser Holdings Limited ( Clear Score). The deal featured horizontal overlaps in UK markets for credit-score checking and related services. Latest developments On 27 February 2019, the parties withdrew from the deal. On that same day, the CMA revoked the merger reference. Parties Experian is a group headquartered in Ireland (listed on the London Stock Exchange) and is the world’s foremost information services company. Experian operates across 37 countries. Credit Laser Holdings ( Clear Score) is a UK-based business that offers free credit score checks to UK...
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
