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 hub reflects the position as at the decision on 12 August 2015 and is no longer being maintained. See also the timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline UK merger scrutiny of the proposed purchase by Reckitt Benckiser ( RB) of Johnson & Johnson’s K‑ Y brand. The deal creates a horizontal overlap in supplying personal lubricants to grocery retailers and nationwide retail pharmacy chains. Following a phase 2 inquiry, the CMA approved the transaction with remedies on 12 August 2015. Latest developments On 12 August 2015, the CMA issued its final report and cleared the merger subject to remedies, having found the transaction could result in an SLC. As a remedy, Reckitt Benckiser must grant a UK licence of the K‑ Y brand to a rival for eight...
This archived case hub captures the position as at the decision of 3 February 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline CMA Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I inquiry into Alliance, Focus, Lexon and Medreich, concerning an alleged non-compete arrangement for the supply of prochlorperazine 3mg buccal tablets in the UK. Latest developments On 18 October 2022, the High Court ordered that the competition law issues in the CMA’s director disqualification proceedings be transferred to the CAT. The High Court will await the CAT’s decision before advancing the CMA’s disqualification case. At a case management conference on 14 November 2022, the CAT made case management directions addressing the transferred part of the disqualification proceeding. Parties Alliance Pharmaceuticals Limited and Alliance Pharma plc (together, Alliance). Alliance is an international pharmaceutical company listed on AIM. Alliance’s expertise lies in acquiring and...
ARCHIVED — this archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision of 14 September 2010; it is no longer kept up to date. Case facts Outline Case C–550/07 Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd v Commission—an appeal to the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgment confirming the Commission’s decision that internal communications between undertakings and their in-house counsel and employees do not benefit from legal professional privilege. Parties Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd ( Akzo) and its subsidiary Akcros Chemicals Ltd ( Akcros) European Commission Market(s) Legal services Background to reference On 10 February 2003, the Commission conducted a dawn raid at the premises of Akzo and its subsidiary Akcros. During the inspection, the Commission’s officials, amongst other materials, seized two email communications. The messages were exchanged between a company officer and a member of its legal department......
This archived case hub reflects the position as at the decision date of 19 May 2015 and is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline The European Commission reviewed Orange’s intended purchase of Jazztel ( Case M.7421). The transaction created horizontal overlaps in Spain’s mobile telecommunications market, where the parties are two of the four operators. On 19/05/2015, the Commission cleared the deal subject to commitments. Latest developments The Commission cleared the transaction subject to commitments on 19 May 2015......
Case facts Outline National reference from Italy’s Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, aiming to determine whether domestic rules in question applicable in Italy on carriage of goods by road—specifically, those stating that customer payments for transport services cannot be set below minimum operating expenses—accord with the principles of free competition, free movement of undertakings, freedom of establishment, and the freedom to provide services. Parties Anonima Petroli Italiana Sp A ( Anonima) Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio ( Lazio Regional Administrative Court) Anonima is an Italian undertaking actively engaged in supplying crude oil to the petrochemical sector and in distributing petroleum products as well. It constitutes the principal operating subsidiary within the Gruppo api holding...
This archived hub records the position as at the decision dated 9 April 2014; it is no longer updated or maintained. For more detail, see the timeline, commentary and related linked cases. Case facts Outline A UK merger probe into Breedon Aggregates’ completed purchase of selected assets from Aggregate Industries UK Ltd. The CMA published its final report on 09/04/2014, approving the deal subject to remedies. Parties Breedon Aggregates, a supplier of heavy construction materials, chiefly and widely serving the North, West and East of Scotland, the East and West Midlands, East Anglia, North Wales, Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire. Aggregate Industries UK Ltd Background Breedon bought a package of assets from Aggregate Industries UK Ltd comprising 11 aggregate quarries (six operating), four asphalt plants (with associated asphalt surfacing services), seven ready-mix concrete plants plus two mothballed plants, and two concrete block factories. Completion occurred on 30 April 2013. The...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment of 31 March 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Appeal by Apple Inc. against the CMA’s decision of 22 November 2022 to make a market investigation reference regarding the supply of mobile browsers and mobile browser engines in the UK, together with the distribution of cloud gaming service through app stores on mobile devices in the UK. Latest development On 31 March 2023, the CAT handed down its judgment, allowing Apple’s appeal. The CAT found that section 131 of the Enterprise Act 2002 did not apply to the CMA’s 22 November 2022 decision because the CMA had issued a market study notice and was proposing to make a reference under section 131 of the Enterprise Act 2002 in relation to the matter...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED — This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 11 April 2024; it is no longer maintained. See the timeline. Case facts Appeal arising from the CMA’s final report on its phase 2 investigation into the completed acquisition by Cérélia Group Holing SAS of certain assets connected to the UK and Ireland dough business Jus- Ro of General Mills, Inc. Outline The appeal contested the CAT’s judgment, which dismissed an appeal against the CMA’s decision of 20 January 2023 relating to that phase 2 report. Latest development On 11 April 2024, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment and dismissed the appeal unanimously......
See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts ARCHIVED — this case hub sets out the position as at the decision of 9 June 2016; it is no longer maintained. Outline An appeal challenged the General Court’s judgment confirming the Commission decision of 3 October 2007 that found an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and imposed a €83.85m fine on CEPSA/ PROAS for their purported role in a price-fixing and market/customer allocation cartel in the Spanish bitumen supply market between 1991 and 2002 (the ‘ Spanish bitumen cartel’). On 9 June 2016, the Court of Justice rejected the appeals in full. The case also examines, among other issues, the implications of an allegedly excessive length of contentious proceedings before the EU Courts. Parties Appellants: Compañía Española de Petróleos SA ( CEPSA) Productos Asfálticos SA ( PROAS) Other party: European...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub presents the position as at the penalty notice dated 20 December 2018; it is no longer being maintained. See also the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline UK merger investigation into the completed acquisition by European Metal Recycling Limited of Metal & Waste Recycling Limited. The deal gives rise to horizontal overlaps within markets for metal recycling. Latest developments On 20 December 2018, the CMA issued a penalty notice to Ausurus and EMR for failure to comply with the initial enforcement order ( IEO) imposed by the CMA. A combined penalty of £300,000 was levied for two infringements......
This archived hub captures the position as at the decision dated 5 November 2013 and is no longer updated. See also: timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline UK merger inquiry into the completed purchase by Ryanair of a minority stake in Aer Lingus. On 5 November 2013, the Competition Commission required Ryanair to cut its interest in Aer Lingus to 5%. Latest developments The OFT opened its probe into Ryanair’s acquisition of the minority holding in October 2010—the inquiry could not begin sooner because Ryanair’s initial attempt to buy the whole company, blocked by the European Commission in 2007, was before the European courts. Ryanair challenged the OFT’s decision to investigate at the Competition Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal—each challenge failed. The OFT sent the minority stake to the CC in June 2012; Ryanair again contested the CC’s decision to examine the matter at the...
ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 30 January 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline The European Commission investigated the proposed takeover of TNT Express by UPS under the mergers regime ( Case M.6570). The Commission prohibited the merger on 30/01/2013. Latest developments The European Commission prohibited the transaction on 30 January 2013. UPS submitted commitments, but these did not resolve the Commission’s concerns. UPS proposed divesting TNT’s operations in the 15 EU states where only three competitors are active. UPS also proposed selling TNT’s operations in Spain and Portugal. Any buyer of the divested businesses that was not an integrator would be granted access to the UPS air network for five years. However, to provide an intra‑ EU delivery service from those 17 countries, a buyer would have...
Case facts Outline CMA Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I CA98 investigation into Casio Electronics Co. Ltd ( Casio) concerning the allegation that Casio breached UK and EU competition law by curbing retailers’ freedom to discount, online, digital pianos and digital keyboards supplied by Casio. Latest developments On 1 August 2019, the CMA issued a decision concluding that Casio infringed Article 101 TFEU/ Chapter I CA98 by preventing online discounting for its digital pianos and keyboards. The CMA imposed penalties totalling £3.7m on Casio, which included a 20% settlement discount. Parties Casio Electronics Co. Ltd ( Casio) is the UK-based subsidiary of Casio Computer Co. Ltd, which is based in Japan. Casio supplies electronic musical instruments, including digital pianos and keyboards. Market(s) Supply of digital pianos and keyboards in the UK......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this hub, archived, records the position as at the decision on 18 April 2012; it is no longer maintained. See: case facts, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline of the European Commission merger investigation into Johnson & Johnson’s acquisition of Synthes ( Case M.6266). Parties Johnson & Johnson and Synthes. Companies are based in the USA and active in production of orthopaedic medical devices......
This archived case hub records the status at the point the transaction was abandoned on 15 December 2015; it is no longer maintained. See timeline and related cases. Case facts Overview of the European Commission’s merger investigation into Mondi Group’s proposed purchase of two of Walki’s packaging plants ( Case M.7566). The deal entailed a horizontal overlap in the market for extrusion coating products. Latest developments On 15 December 2015, Mondi and Walki announced that they would withdraw their application to the Commission and bring the acquisition agreement to an end. Following discussions with the Commission on options to resolve competition concerns, both parties explained that no viable remedy acceptable to all sides could be identified. The Commission received formal notice of the withdrawal on 15 December 2015, and the subsequent notice was published in the OJEU on 22 December...
ARCHIVED – this archived case hub records the position at the date of the judgment of 25 March 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 7 October 2008, which found that Slovakia’s amendments to its postal legislation — extending the historical operator Slovenská Pošta’s exclusive rights to the provision of hybrid mail services — were contrary to Article 86(1) EC (now Article 106(1) TFEU) read in conjunction with Article 82 EC (now Article 102 TFEU). On 25 March 2015, the General Court dismissed the action in full. The case concerns, amongst other issues, the appropriate approach to applying Article 106(1) TFEU together with Article 102 TFEU. Parties Applicant: Slovenská Pošta a.s. ( Slovenská Pošta) Defendant: European...
Archived — this case hub, preserved for the record, sets out the position as at the decision of 12 January 2020; it is no longer updated. See the timeline for more. Case facts Outline of the UK merger probe into TVS Europe Distribution Limited’s completed purchase of 3G Truck & Trailer Parts Limited. The businesses both supply, at wholesale, commercial vehicle and trailer components to motor factors (local distributors) within the Independent Aftermarket. Latest developments On 12 January 2021, following its phase 2 review, the CMA published its final report, concluding that the deal has led, or could lead, to an SLC due to horizontal unilateral effects in the UK supply of commercial vehicle and trailer parts to motor factors (local distributors) in the Independent Aftermarket. In light of these findings, the CMA determined that TVS Europe Distribution Limited must divest 3G Truck & Trailer Parts Limited to a...
This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 29 July 2016 and is no longer updated. For more detail, see the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline UK merger inquiry into the proposed acquisition by Celesio AG of Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited UK Pharmacy Business. The deal features horizontal overlaps in the retail pharmacy sector. Latest developments On 26 July 2016, the CMA issued its final report, clearing the merger subject to remedies. It found the transaction would be expected to cause an SLC in 12 local retail pharmacy markets where the parties are particularly close rivals, namely: Beaconsfield Bracknell Cardiff Christchurch Kempston Kidlington Leeds Liverpool Luton Reading ( Calcot)/ Theale Sandy/ Potton/ Biggleswade Warlingham As remedies, Celesio must divest one Lloyds pharmacy in each area of concern to a...
ARCHIVED —this preserved and historical case hub captures the state as at the decision of 21 January 2016; it is no longer being maintained. Case facts Outline Appeal lodged by GALP against the General Court’s judgment which, while marginally lowering the individual penalty, upheld on the merits the Commission decision of 3 October 2007 finding a breach of Article 101 TFEU and levying an individual fine of €8.66m on GALP (cut to €8.28m following the General Court’s ruling) for its supposed role in a price-fixing and market/customer sharing cartel in the Spanish bitumen sector between 1991 and 2002 (‘ Spanish bitumen cartel’). On 21 January 2016, the Court of Justice allowed GALP’s appeal and annulled the General Court judgment to the extent that the General Court had set a revised penalty, owing to errors in concluding that GALP was ‘aware’ of (and thus...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this page captures the status as at the 14 March 2019 decision and is not being updated. For more, see the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline CMA Article 102 TFEU/ Chapter II probe concerning Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited, regarding suspected abuse of dominance via an anti-competitive discount programme for Remicade (a type of biological medicine known as infliximab). Latest developments On 14/03/2019, the CMA ended the case and delivered a ‘no grounds for action’ decision. This followed the case decision group’s view that MSD’s scheme was not likely to restrict competition from rivals. Parties Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited ( MSD) is a pharmaceutical company, ultimately owned by Merck & Co., Inc., a US-based global pharmaceutical group, and one of the largest pharmaceutical companies...
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
