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 Court of Justice in Case C- 149/21 ARCHIVED -this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 16 December 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline. Case facts Outline An action before the General Court contesting the European Commission’s decision of 14 June 2018 which, under Article 7(2) of Regulation 773/2004, dismissed a complaint filed by Fakro sp. z o.o. against VKR Holding A/ S alleging abuse of a dominant position ( Case AT.39451). Outcome On 16 December 2020, the General Court handed down its judgment and rejected the appeal in full. Among other findings, the Court concluded that the Commission had not committed a manifest error when refusing Fakro sp. z o.o.’s...
CASE HUB Archived This archived case hub captures the position as at the decision date of 20 May 2021; it is not being maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline UK merger review of the proposed joint venture between Liberty Global plc and Telefónica S. A to combine their UK operations, Virgin Media/ Virgin Mobile and O2. The parties both provide wholesale services to other UK mobile network operators. Latest developments On 20 May 2021, the CMA issued its final report, clearing the deal unconditionally after a detailed phase 2 investigation. Parties Liberty Global plc ( Liberty) owns Virgin Media and Virgin Mobile in the UK. Telefónica S. A. ( Telefónica) owns O2 in the UK. Background Announced on 7 May 2020, Liberty and Telefónica will create a 50:50 joint venture, to which each will contribute their UK businesses- Virgin Media (including Virgin Mobile) and O2...
Mastercard Incorporated and others v Walter Hugh Merrick CBE ( CPO application) [ Archived] ARCHIVED – this case hub is a preserved snapshot as at the judgment dated 11 December 2020; it is no longer being updated. For more, see the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal arising from the Court of Appeal’s ruling of 16 April 2019, which upheld Walter Merricks’s challenge to the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s 21 July 2017 decision declining to make a Collective Proceedings Order. Latest development On 11 December 2020, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment, affirming the Court of Appeal’s decision and remitting the matter to the Competition Appeal Tribunal for reconsideration. In particular, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the CAT committed numerous errors of law when declining to certify Mr Merricks’ mass consumer collective...
In the UK, unilateral or ‘dominant’ firm behaviour falls within section 18 of the Competition Act 1998. Section 18(1) of Chapter II provides that conduct by one or more undertakings amounting to abuse of a dominant position in a market is prohibited if it may affect trade within the United Kingdom. the abuse need only have the potential to impact trade within the UK, and the dominant position must exist within the UK (even if the abuse occurs outside the UK) ‘ UK’ refers to the United Kingdom or any part of it. There is no requirement that the part be ‘substantial’. Otherwise, the analysis of the applicability of the will mirror Article 102 TFEU, namely: is there a dominant position? This involves defining the market and evaluating the allegedly dominant undertaking’s position in that market, and is the conduct at issue...
A key proposition underpinning UK competition law Rival undertakings are expected to pursue their strategies independently in the marketplace. In general, head-to-head rivalry should deliver maximum consumer benefit and allocate resources most efficiently. As a result, the Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA) treats with caution any arrangement liable to soften competition or lessen the commercial uncertainty that would otherwise separate competitors. Nonetheless, businesses may have sound reasons for entering agreements whose clauses or obligations risk constraining competition. That is particularly true where such arrangements are intended to create or advance beneficial outcomes (efficiencies) that would not materialise without the restriction included in the agreement. UK competition policy aims to balance safeguarding effective competition (notably by outlawing illegitimate collusion) against securing advantages that arise-and are often only attainable-through co-operation. Chapter I sets out the legal framework for this balanced appraisal, weighing the...
CASE HUB NOTE-referral back to the General Court in Case T- 131/16 RENV ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment of 16 September 2021 and is no longer maintained. See the timeline and commentary for more... Case facts Appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 131/16, which had upheld an action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision on selective tax advantages granted by Belgium under its ‘excess profit’ tax scheme ( SA.37667)... Latest developments On 16 September 2021, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, finding that the General Court had erred in interpreting and applying Article 1(d) of Regulation 215/1589. It therefore set aside the General Court’s ruling. Nonetheless, the Court of Justice remitted the case to the General Court to rule on two unresolved pleas raised at first instance: whether the Belgian scheme constituted state aid, and the...
CASE HUB NOTE-appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 42/21 ARCHIVED - this case hub captures the position as at the judgment of 18 November 2020 and is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Proceedings concern an appeal before the General Court challenging the European Commission’s decision of 2 October 2017 under Article 102, which fined AB Lietuvos geležinkeliai €27,873,000 for dismantling a 19km section of railway linking Lithuania and Latvia ( AT.39813). Outline The applicant sought annulment and/or a reduction of the fine imposed by that decision. Outcome On 18 November 2020, the General Court delivered its judgment, dismissing the appeal in full on the merits. Although it found no error in the Commission’s approach to imposing a fine, exercising its unlimited jurisdiction over the amount, it reduced the penalty from €27,873,000 to €20,068,650, having regard to the gravity and...
1. What is the applicable legislation? If you invest by setting up a Kazakh company, or by purchasing an interest in one, or through the acquisition of a shareholding therein, the interactions between participants concerning their respective rights and duties are generally governed by Kazakhstani law. That said, on acquiring a stake in a Kazakhstani entity, many matters can be elevated to regulation by foreign law, particularly where the corporate structure of the target is modified following completion of the acquisition. Where an investor signs an investment contract, and ancillary agreements made under it, the parties’ legal relations may then be governed either by the law of the Astana International Financial Centre or by the law of the Republic of Kazakhstan, as applicable. Note, however, that entering into an investment contract is not compulsory for investors when making an investment and is most often...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this hub captures the position as at the decision date of 3 September 2024; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Summary of the UK merger probe into the expected purchase by T& L Sugars Limited of the UK packaging and distribution facility and the business-to-consumer operations of Tereos United Kingdom and Ireland Limited from Tereos SCA. The deal gives rise to horizontal overlaps concerning the supply of several categories of packaged sugar to business-to-consumer customers in the UK. Latest developments On 26 September 2024, the CMA published a notice (dated 25 September 2024) imposing a penalty on Tereos SCA and Tereos United Kingdom and Ireland under section 110 of the Enterprise Act 2002 for failing to comply with a section 109 notice requiring specified minutes and internal documents on board and corporate governance during phase 2. The CMA levied a...
ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position as at 31 May 2018, the date of the decision; it is no longer maintained. See the timeline, commentary, and related/relevant cases for more. It records the position at that date only and is not updated. Case facts Outline Case C‑633/16 Ernst & Young P/ S v Konkurrencerådet — a Danish reference asking how the EU Merger Regulation’s standstill obligation ( Article 7) applies to the merger between Ernst & Young and KPMG Denmark, and to the associated termination of a cooperation agreement between KPMG Denmark and the KPMG network. Latest developments On 31 May 2018, the Court of Justice gave judgment, holding that the standstill duty in Article 7(1) of the EU Merger Regulation attaches only to steps which, in whole or in part, in fact or in law, contribute to a change in control of the target...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived hub captures the position as at 23 July 2015, the date the transaction was abandoned, and it is no longer being maintained. For more, see the timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline: UK merger probe into the proposed acquisition by Ash Limited of W Corbett & Co ( Galvanizing) Limited. The deal presented a horizontal overlap in the market for the provision of galvanising services in the West Midlands. Latest developments On 23 July 2015, the CMA cancelled its inquiry into the anticipated acquisition after the parties’ announcement that they had withdrawn from the transaction. Parties Joseph Ash Ltd ( Joseph Ash) is a subsidiary of UK company Hill & Smith Holdings plc. Joseph Ash is among the UK’s leading suppliers of steel finishing services (including galvanising) and runs six UK plants: Bilston (...
Case facts Outline Appeals were lodged against the General Court’s rulings in Cases T‑827/14 Deutsche Telekom v Commission and T‑851/14 Slovak Telekom v Commission, which set aside in part the Commission’s decision of 15 October 2014. That decision had concluded that Deutsche Telekom and its subsidiary Slovak Telekom infringed Article 102 TFEU by deploying, over more than five years, an abusive course of conduct designed to drive competitors out of the Slovak broadband market ( AT.39523). Latest development On 25 March 2021, the Court of Justice issued its judgment and rejected the appeals in full. It held that the Commission does not have to establish that access to a specific infrastructure is ‘indispensable’ in order to prove abusive behaviour, where such access is required by...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub records the position as at the decision of 16 May 2012; it is no longer maintained. For more, see the case facts and the timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into Südzucker’s acquisition of ED& F MAN ( Case M.6286). Parties Südzucker and ED& F MAN Südzucker is a Germany-based business that manufactures and sells sugar, and also produces other food products, including food additives, frozen foods, portioned food items, bioethanol production and fruit juices, concentrates and preparations. It makes sugar in 29 beet sugar plants and three refineries across several European countries (both within and outside the EU). Südzucker is the largest sugar producer in Europe. ED& F MAN is a UK-based commodity trading firm that also runs food production facilities. ......
This archived case hub sets out the status as at the decision date of 27 March 2017; it is no longer updated. See also the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts European Commission merger review into the planned merger between Dow and Du Pont ( Case M.7932). The deal entails horizontal overlaps in markets for crop protection, seed and certain petrochemicals. Latest developments On 27 March 2017, the Commission cleared the transaction subject to commitments. Divest a substantial portion of Du Pont’s current pesticide business, together with its R& D organisation. Transfer two of Dow’s plants making acid co-polymers and a contract with a third party used to source ionomers. Parties Dow is a US-based company headquartered in Michigan. It is a diversified chemicals enterprise, part of a broader group active in plastics and chemicals, agricultural sciences, and hydrocarbon and energy products and services. Du Pont is a...
See further, timeline Case facts Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU probe into SAP’s maintenance and support practices for its on‑premises Enterprise Resource Planning ( ERP) software ( AT.40823). Latest development On 14 November 2025, the Commission opened a market test concerning commitments put forward by SAP. Parties SAP: SAP, a Germany‑based company, builds software applications that help businesses run their operations. This includes ERP systems supporting functions such as corporate finance, human resources and project management. SAP’s ERP can be deployed on‑premises—running on the customer’s own servers—or in the cloud—hosted on SAP’s servers and delivered over the internet. SAP also offers maintenance and support for its ERP, including regular updates and technical assistance to keep business customers’ systems working. Other providers also supply maintenance and support for SAP’s on‑premises ERP, competing with SAP, often on more favourable commercial conditions (ie...
This archived case hub captures the position as at the date of the judgment of 17 September 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases Case facts Outline An action for annulment was lodged before the General Court against the Commission’s decision of 7 February 2007 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production ( Case SA.12186). The Commission considered 80% of the tax relief granted by the Italian Government to Euroallumina Sp A to be lawful, and, on that basis, required recovery of the remaining 20% of the amount of relief. Latest developments On 17 September 2019, the General Court delivered its judgment, in which it dismissed in its entirety the appeals brought by Italy and Eurallumina, finding that the excise duty exemptions granted to Eurallumina Sp A, for mineral oils used as fuel in...
ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 21 December 2012; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline UK merger inquiry into Akzo Nobel’s intended acquisition of Metlac. Latest developments On 21 December 2012, the Competition Commission released its final report. The CC concluded that blocking the merger was the only effective remedy for the SLC identified. Akzo Nobel then appealed this decision to the CAT – see Akzo Nobel v Competition Commission. On 14 August 2015, the CMA published a notice to accept final undertakings from Akzo Nobel and the Bocchio family. The consultation on those undertakings runs until 1 September 2015. Parties Akzo Nobel NV ( Akzo Nobel) and Metlac Holding ( Metlac). Akzo Nobel holds a 49% stake in Metlac and has exercised an option to purchase the remaining shares and obtain sole...
This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment dated 15 May 2014 and is no longer updated Case facts Outline An appeal was lodged against the General Court’s judgment dismissing garantovaná’s action to annul the Commission’s decision of 22 July 2009. That decision found infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA and imposed a €19.6m fine, stemming from garantovaná’s alleged involvement in a calcium carbide and magnesium cartel between 2004 and 2007 (the ‘ Calcium carbide cartel’). The appeal principally concerns the methodology for setting the fine and, in particular, whether the Commission used the correct ‘preceding business year’ when calculating the amount payable by garantovaná Parties Appellant: garantovaná a.s. (garantovaná) Defendant: European Commission Novácke chemické závody a.s. ( NCHZ), a Slovak company, produced calcium carbide among other products. During the period of the alleged...
Case hub archived — this hub sets out the position as at 18 October 2017, when certain commitments were revised following the 2015 conditional clearance; it is no longer maintained. See the timeline for more information. Case facts Outline of the European Commission’s merger probe into General Electric’s proposed purchase of Alstom’s Thermal Power, Renewable Power & Grid Business ( Case M.7278). The deal featured horizontal overlaps in the markets for heavy duty gas turbines. Latest development On 18 October 2017, the Commission approved GE’s request to adjust elements of the decision of 8 September 2015. The agreed changes comprised: an alteration to the list of key personnel revisions concerning Pipeline Projects that relate solely to the activities retained by GE amendments concerning the trade marks to be licensed back to GE Parties General Electric ( GE) is a US‑based...
ARCHIVED – this case hub records the position as at the decision of 11 May 2016 and is no longer updated. See also the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission merger review of the planned purchase by Hutchison 3G UK (owner of Three UK) of Telefonica UK (owner of O2) ( Case M.7612). The deal featured horizontal overlaps in the UK mobile telecommunications sector and in other telecoms markets. It concerned overlaps across the UK mobile telecoms market and other telecommunications markets nationwide as well. Latest developments On 11 May 2016, the Commission blocked the merger. The remedies proposed did not sufficiently tackle the Commission’s concerns. In particular, they failed to address disruption to existing UK network sharing arrangements, were not capable of substituting for the loss of competitive intensity in retail and wholesale markets and, being largely...
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
