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 reflects the position as at the decision date of 11 December 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts The European Commission conducted a merger investigation into Thales’ proposed acquisition of Gemalto ( Case M.8797). The deal entails, in particular, a horizontal overlap in the market for hardware security modules at both European and global levels. Latest developments On 21 March 2018, the Commission granted conditional approval, subject to commitments. Under these commitments, Thales’ general‑purpose hardware security modules business is to be divested. Parties Thales S. A. ( Thales), headquartered in France, is a global group active in aeronautics, space, ground transportation, defence and security. Gemalto N. V. ( Gemalto), based in the Netherlands, is an international digital security company active in mobile platforms and services, mobile embedded software and products, smart cards,...
NOTE—appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C- 582/18, C- 587/18, C- 589/18, C- 590/18, C- 591/18, C- 591/18, C- 593/18, C- 594/18, C- 596/18, C- 599/18, C- 601/18, C- 606/18, C- 607/18 and C- 611/18 ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment of 12 October 2018 and is no longer updated. For more detail, see: timeline, commentary, and relevant/similar cases. Case facts Applications were brought before the General Court seeking, wholly or partially, to annul and/or to obtain reductions of the fines set in the Commission’s decision of 2 April 2014, which levied a total of €301.6m on manufacturers of high‑voltage power cables for their involvement in a global market‑sharing and customer‑allocation arrangement (the power cables cartel). Outline See also Case T‑419/14 The Goldman Sachs Group v Commission (power cables cartel) for a distinct case hub on the General Court’s ruling...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED this archived case hub captures the status as at the decision dated 27 November 2018; it is not being updated. See also timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission merger probe into the planned purchase by T- Mobile NL of Tele2 NL ( Case M.8792). The deal involves horizontal overlaps within the Dutch mobile telecommunications market. Latest developments On 27 November 2018, the deal received unconditional clearance after an in-depth phase II review. Parties T- Mobile NL supplies telecommunication services to private and corporate customers in the Netherlands. It is a MNO with nationwide coverage delivering 2G, 3G, 4G and Narrow Band- Internet of Things ( NB- Io T) mobile communications services. It also offers retail fixed services, including broadband Internet, TV and fixed telephony, based on wholesale access services. T- Mobile NL is a subsidiary of Deutsche...
This summarises completed EU merger enforcement actions since 2014 For details on live EU merger enforcement work, see EU mergers—ongoing cases tracker. For concluded Commission phase I merger reviews, see EU phase I mergers—closed cases tracker. For concluded Commission phase II merger reviews, see EU phase II mergers—closed cases tracker. For information on appeals before the General Court, see General Court appeals—ongoing cases tracker; for appeals before the Court of Justice, see Court of Justice appeals—ongoing cases tracker. 2023 Case: Illumina/ GRAIL ( M.10493, M.10483, M.10938 and M.10939) Industry sector: Production of basis pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations Issues: Gun jumping Decision: Decision withdrawn following Case C- 611/22 Commission adopts restorative measures requiring Illumina to unwind its completed acquisition of...
CASE HUB NOTE— appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C-403/18 P (in relation to the main appeal); and in Case C-386/15 (in relation to the General Court’s order made on 16/06/2015) ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment of 10 April 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Alcogroup and Alcodis brought an appeal before the General Court against two Commission decisions dated 12 March 2015 and 8 May 2015. The first concerned how Commission inspectors conducted dawn raids on 24 March 2015 in case AT.40244, alleging that legally privileged correspondence was unlawfully analysed and seized. The second related to the Commission’s letter refusing the applicants’ request to suspend any investigative act regarding them in AT.40054 and...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archive sets out the position as at the decision dated 29 March 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline CMA Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I investigation into two cartels in the furniture sector, involving market sharing, price-fixing, bid-rigging and the disclosure of commercially sensitive information (case CE/9882-16). Latest developments On 29 March 2018, the CMA delivered its infringement decision. The following penalties were imposed: CPL – £2,816,514 Fuel Express – £627,867 Both penalties include reductions under the CMA’s settlement procedure. Parties CPL Distribution Limited and CPL Industries Holdings Limited (together, CPL), the largest coal merchant in the UK. Fuel Express ......
Below is a summary of completed national references to the Court of Justice relating to how the EU Merger Regulation is interpreted since January 2013. For live national references before the Court of Justice, consult Court of Justice—ongoing national references. 2018 Case C-633/16, Ernst & Young Origin: Danish court Clarifies the scope of the EU Merger Regulation’s standstill duty ( Article 7) as it applies to the merger at issue specifically......
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Cases T- 671/19 and C- 371/17 ARCHIVED – this archived case hub sets out the position at the date of the decision of 18 July 2019 and is no longer maintained. See further timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU investigations into Qualcomm, examining alleged predatory pricing in relation to baseband chipsets ( Case AT.39711). Latest development On 18 July 2019, the Commission adopted an infringement decision against Qualcomm, concluding it abused a dominant position by engaging in predatory pricing, selling baseband chipsets below cost to two key customers with the aim of driving a competitor ( Icera) out of the market. The Commission imposed a €242m fine on Qualcomm. Parties Qualcomm, a US-based company headquartered in San Diego ( California), designs and markets wireless...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 4 July 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline The European Commission examined the merger plan under which Tronox would acquire Cristal ( Case M.8451). The deal raises horizontal overlaps in titanium dioxide market segments. Latest developments On 4 July 2018, the Commission granted conditional clearance, tied to binding commitments. Tronox must dispose of its worldwide titanium dioxide pigment activity for paper laminate. Completion may occur only after the Commission reviews and authorises the sale to an appropriate buyer. Parties Tronox, incorporated in Australia and based in the US, operates in the mining and manufacture of minerals and chemicals (notably titanium dioxide). It holds mines in Australia and South Africa and runs production sites in Europe, the US and Australia. The National Titanium Dioxide Company Ltd (...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the decision date of 21 February 2019; it is no longer updated. See also the timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline The Financial Conduct Authority ( FCA) conducted an Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I probe into four asset managers concerning an alleged infringement of competition rules by exchanging commercially sensitive pricing information for initial public offerings ( IPOs). Latest development On 21 February 2019, the FCA issued its decision concluding that three asset management firms had violated competition law. Penalties were levied on two of those firms. Parties Artemis Investment Management LLP ( Artemis), a prominent UK-based fund manager Hargreave Hale Ltd ( Hargreave Hale), a leading UK provider of investment management, stockbroking and fund management services Newton Investment Management Limited ( Newton), a UK-based global investment management firm, together with its ultimate parent, The Bank of New...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this hub is an archive that sets out the position as at the judgment dated 13 June 2013; it is no longer being updated. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Versalis Sp A (formerly Polimeri Europa Sp A) lodged an appeal against the General Court's ruling, which in part upheld the Commission's decision finding an infringement and imposing a €272.25m fine, to be paid jointly and severally by Versalis and its parent, Eni Sp A, for their alleged role in a European-wide cartel covering the supply of butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber (hereafter BR and ESBR respectively, or together 'synthetic rubber') between 20 May 1996 and 28 November 2002. While confirming the breach, the General Court reduced the penalty to €181.5m, concluding that the 50% increase applied for recidivism had not been...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 30 October 2018; it is no longer maintained Case facts Outline European Commission investigation under Article 101 TFEU into Brussels Airlines and TAP Air Portugal ( Case AT.39860). Latest development On 30 October 2018, the Commission declared the inquiry closed. The material obtained did not sufficiently substantiate its initial concerns; moreover, since 2014, additional airlines have started to challenge the code-sharing carriers on the Brussels– Lisbon route, to the benefit of consumers. The Commission nevertheless notes that ending this case does not imply that close cooperation between competing airlines cannot give rise to competition issues. Parties Brussels Airlines, based in Belgium (a subsidiary of the German airline Lufthansa) TAP Air Portugal, based in...
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
