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
Practice Note: FAQs on service under Regulation ( EU) 2020/1784 ( Service Regulation, recast) This Practice Note summarises frequently asked questions and responses on serving judicial and extra‑judicial documents under Regulation ( EU) 2020/1784 ( Service Regulation, recast). For comprehensive guidance on the regulation’s provisions, see Practice Note: The Service Regulation (recast). Accessing the forms required from Annex I Question: Where can I obtain Word versions of the forms to be completed? Answer: Word versions are not provided. The forms should be completed online via the European e‑justice website using the links to the online forms. PDF versions are available in the same location. Acknowledgement of receipt equivalent Question: When using the postal service, what counts as an equivalent to the acknowledgement of receipt document? Answer: The Court of Justice addressed this in Henderson v Novo Banco (2017) under the earlier Service Regulation (predecessor to the recast). It held that...
STOP PRESS: On 17 June 2025, the European Commission adopted a package of measures proposing amendments to the EU securitisation regime. Headline elements comprise a lighter due diligence and risk analysis duty for institutional investors in EU securitisations, a shift towards a principles-based approach for securitisations overall, and a lower risk retention requirement for sell-side entities in certain securitisation types. The Commission’s proposals are presently being reviewed by the European Parliament and the Council. There is no fixed timetable for this process, though it is expected to take at least 18–24 months. EU Securitisation Regulation and related legislation—background and purpose In September 2015, the Commission issued the Action Plan on Building a Capital Markets Union. The plan set out a broad suite of measures designed to create integrated capital markets across the EU’s Member States—a Capital Markets Union or CMU—to encourage investment and drive growth. The CMU...
Introduction to EU REACH ' EU REACH' is the short form for Regulation ( EC) 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, dealing with the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals. Taking effect on 1 June 2007, EU REACH replaced a range of EU Directives and Regulations with a single piece of legislation that applies directly in all EU Member States. EU REACH places the duty to understand and manage the risks of chemicals placed on the EU market, and their use, on those who manufacture and/or import goods containing chemicals. The core objectives of EU REACH are to: ensure a high level of protection for human health and the environment enable the free movement of substances within the EU market boost the competitiveness and innovation of the EU chemicals sector encourage methods other than vivisection and/or animal testing for assessing hazardous properties of...
The PRIIPs Regulation and level 2 measures This Practice Note sets out an overview of the Packaged Retail and Insurance-based Investment Products ( PRIIPs) regime in Regulation ( EU) 1286/2014 and the related Level 2 measures. A key element is the duty on product manufacturers to prepare a standard, pre-sale Key Information Document ( KID) for PRIIPs, allowing retail investors to compare products and decide whether a PRIIP is suitable for them. The approach draws heavily on the undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities ( UCITS) Key Investor Information Document ( KIID). Regulation ( EU) 1286/2014 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 9 December 2014 and has applied since 1 January 2018, with a UCITS exemption running until 31 December 2022. This carve-out also covers non- UCITS retail funds that produce a UCITS KIID ( Article 32(2) of...
If a deal qualifies as a notifiable ‘concentration’ under the EU Merger Regulation ( EUMR) and meets the relevant jurisdictional thresholds, it must be notified to the European Commission (the Commission). The Commission will then review the deal according to a prescribed process. Until clearance is granted by the Commission, the parties must put implementation on hold. The Commission’s review begins once the parties formally notify it by filing a completed Form CO. From that point, the review follows a set timetable with strict deadlines: all mergers undergo a phase I review—the Commission has 25 working days to issue its phase I decision (extendable to 35 working days if the parties propose commitments), and if the Commission is concerned a merger may impede competition, it will refer the case for a more detailed phase II review, unless the parties submit suitable...
In brief Data protection rules across the EEA (the EU together with Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein) aim to make sure information about living people, falling within the concept of ‘personal data’, is handled lawfully and with care. To achieve this, these laws place extensive duties and responsibilities on anyone ‘processing’ personal data, as well as on the controllers directing such processing activities. The framework explicitly acknowledges that handling children’s personal data demands tailored safeguards, and grants strengthened protections for children’s information in particular. That is because children may understand less about the risks, consequences and safeguards involved, and about their rights concerning personal data processing. These extra safeguards also matter more broadly for organisations not intentionally targeting children’s data (for example, designing a service for adults), as they must assess whether they might unintentionally process children’s personal data (for instance, if a child uses that...
FORTHCOMING CHANGE: On 15 January 2026, the European Data Protection Board put out for public consultation its Recommendations 1/2026 on applications for approval and on the core elements and principles to be included in Processor Binding Corporate Rules ( Article 47 GDPR). These Recommendations annul and supersede—while substantively building on—in particular Working Party Guidance WP 257 rev.01 ( Working Document on BCRs for processors) and Working Party Guidance WP 265 ( Recommendation on the Standard Application form for Approval of Processor Binding Corporate Rules for the Transfer of Personal Data). The consultation runs until 2 March 2026, with the text taking effect upon publication of the final version following the public consultation process. For further details, see Practice Note: EU GDPR— EDPB supranational level guidance tracker. This Practice Note addresses Binding Corporate Rules ( BCRs) as one of the mechanisms that permits the...
By Marjolein Geus and Feyo Sickinghe. On 15 December 2020, the European Commission (the Commission) unveiled drafts for two measures to govern digital services: the Digital Services Act ( DSA) and the Digital Markets Act ( DMA). The DMA appeared in the EU’s Official Journal on 12 October 2022, took effect on 1 November 2022, and will apply from 2 May 2023. Identification of gatekeeper platforms is scheduled for mid‑2023, with businesses expected to meet DMA obligations from March 2024. Introduction The Digital Services Act and revisions to the e‑commerce Directive 2000/311 (the Digital Services Act or DSA) target the oversight of varied online intermediaries, spanning basic conduit services through to very large online platforms, for which differentiated levels of rules are set. The Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Digital Markets Act (the Digital Markets Act, DMA, or the...
This Practice Note outlines the principal provisions of Regulation ( EU) 2020/1784, the Service Regulation (recast), which governs serving documents from one EU Member State to another. The primary channel is via the transmitting and receiving agencies within EU Member States, as addressed in Practice Note: —the stages of transmitting and serving documents). Other service routes are also available under the regulation. The framework can be challenging to follow. For guidance, see Practice Note: —commonly asked questions and answers, which should be read alongside this Practice Note. All forms referred to as appearing in Annex I of the regulation are accessible on the justice.europa website: on-line forms— Serving documents (recast) forms... Practical considerations Service outside the jurisdiction is highly complex and may prove time-consuming. You may need to organise translations of final form documents, and you might choose to effect service using more than one...
Any entity affected by an alleged breach of EU competition rules may lodge a complaint with the European Commission (the Commission) concerning relevant agreements and/or practices and related conduct that could constitute violations of Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU. In its Notice on the handling of complaints (the Complaints Notice), the Commission explains that it seeks to motivate and encourage citizens and undertakings to proactively approach the relevant public enforcers of competition law in order to alert them to suspected contraventions of the competition rules. For ease of reference, this Practice Note calls the party submitting the complaint the ‘complainant’. The party complained against is termed the ‘defendant’. Additional detail on how the Commission deals with complaints can be found in section 5 of the Commission’s notice on best practices for the conduct of proceedings relating to Article 101 and 102 TFEU (the Notice on Best...
This Practice Note offers high-level guidance on Regulation ( EU) 2016/1011 (the EU Benchmarks Regulation). For more detailed coverage, see Practice Note: EU Benchmarks Regulation—essentials. Background to the EU Benchmarks Regulation Benchmarks are central to pricing a vast array of financial instruments and both commercial and non-commercial agreements. After instances of manipulation in certain benchmarks, including LIBOR, widespread doubts arose over the reliability of benchmarks as a whole. Regulators responded with investigations and enforcement measures across multiple benchmarks. In this context, on 18 September 2013 the Commission put forward a proposal for a regulation on indices used as benchmarks in financial instruments and financial contracts. The EU Benchmarks Regulation was published in the Official Journal of the EU on 29 June 2016, took effect on 30 June 2016, and the bulk of its provisions have applied since 1 January...
Use this FLASHCARD to grasp and remember the key points of the oversight framework for critical ICT providers, including cloud computing service providers, established by Regulation ( EU) 2022/2554, the Digital Operational Resilience Act ( DORA). What are critical ICT service providers? Within DORA, the European Supervisory Authorities ( ESAs — ESMA, EBA and EIOPA) may designate ICT service providers as ‘critical’ for the purposes of DORA by reference to a blend of quantitative and qualitative criteria: the potential systemic effect on the stability, continuity or quality of financial services if the provider were to suffer a large‑scale operational outage or failure to deliver its services, taking into account how many financial entities it supports and the overall asset values of those entities the systemic nature or significance of the dependent financial entities, assessed by reference to how many global systemically important...
Tort and delict claims— Article 7(2) Brussels I (recast) This Practice Note outlines the treatment of tort and delict actions under Article 7(2) of Regulation ( EU) 1215/2021, Brussels I (recast). It explains what constitutes such claims for the purposes of Article 7(2) and sets out how the provision should be construed. A central issue in applying this rule is pinpointing the place where the damaging event happened, which is assessed with illustrations for particular categories of claim. The Practice Note also addresses scenarios involving co-defendants and applications for negative declarations that a party bears no liability in tort or delict. It should be noted that Article 7(2) departs from the default position in Article 4 of Regulation ( EU) 1215/2021, Brussels I (recast), namely that proceedings are brought in the courts of the jurisdiction where the defendant is domiciled. For...
A ‘merger’ can come within the scope of the EU merger rules and require notification to the European Commission (the Commission) where at least two parties to the deal generate appreciable worldwide and EU turnover, both combined and individually. In particular, and subject to a few narrowly construed exceptions, a transaction must be notified to and cleared by the Commission if: it is a ‘concentration’ within the meaning of the EU Merger Regulation ( EUMR) the merger is permanent it satisfies the specified financial thresholds Where these requirements are satisfied then, subject to a few narrowly construed exceptions, EU merger control will apply to the exclusion of the national merger rules of any European Economic Area ( EEA) Member State. The EUMR defines a ‘concentration’ as follows: where two independent undertakings merge—this includes scenarios in which previously...
This Practice Note explains how the European Commission (the Commission) undertakes the substantive appraisal of mergers under the EU Merger Regulation ( EUMR). Where a deal falls within the EUMR, the Commission must decide whether the concentration is compatible with the single market. Under the EUMR, any concentration that brings about a significant impediment to effective competition ( SIEC) in the internal market, or a substantial part of it, in particular through the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, must be declared incompatible with the single market. By contrast, a concentration that does not lead to a SIEC in the internal market, or in a substantial part of it, must be cleared (ie deemed compatible with the single market). The SIEC test The SIEC test was introduced into EU competition law to close a gap identified by the European Courts when assessing the...
EU Merger Regulation ( EUMR) Under the EU Merger Regulation, the European Commission may accept remedial undertakings as a condition of a Phase I approval or following a Phase II, in‑depth review; within the EUMR these remedies are described as ‘commitments’. The Commission has been adaptable and inventive in crafting such measures, and in practice prefers conditional clearances to outright prohibitions. Although it cannot unilaterally impose commitments, it can apply pressure on the merging parties to propose suitable commitments where competition concerns arise, and it is prepared to give general guidance on the appropriateness of what to offer. Large global deals between close rivals can still be approved if workable remedies are identified that, at the same time, do not call into question the economic rationale of the transaction. By way of illustration, in Ball/ Rexam ( M.7567), involving the two leading beverage can...
The EU requires parties to transactions to notify when specified thresholds are crossed, enabling competition authorities to examine deals that could significantly harm competition before completion. Gun jumping concerns unlawful pre-merger co-ordination or integration between the parties to a transaction. It commonly refers to two situations: transactions completed without any notification despite thresholds being met (‘failure to notify’ cases), and substantive gun jumping, i.e. integration steps taken before clearance—often while the authorities’ review is ongoing For a practical checklist of do’s and don’ts on gun jumping, see the Gun-jumping ‘ Do’s and don’ts’—checklist. Failure to notify Failure to notify cases are those where parties entirely omit informing the competition authorities of a transaction that triggers merger thresholds, thereby breaching the obligation to notify a transaction prior to its implementation under Article 4(1) of the EU Merger Regulation ( EUMR). Where the EUMR is not...
EU legal framework governing medicinal products A sophisticated network of requirements and guidance, developed at EU level and by EU Member States, shapes oversight of medicinal products, covering: clinical evaluation (ie clinical trials) market entry (ie marketing authorisation ( MA) and the regulatory procedure for approving medicinal products and variations to existing MAs) protection of pre-clinical and clinical data generated to obtain an MA (ie regulatory data protection) manufacture and importation labelling and the package leaflet advertising and promotion wholesale distribution and brokering pharmacovigilance pricing and reimbursement falsified medicines medicines for rare diseases (ie orphan medicinal products ( OMPs)) paediatric medicines advanced therapy medicinal products ( ATMPs) unlicensed medicines and off-label use of authorised medicines EU legal framework Law in these areas has expanded quickly at EU level, driving greater...
Practice Note Within the EU, medical devices are strictly overseen by legislation that manages safety and performance throughout the whole lifecycle and across the full product lifetime, spanning pre- to post-market stages. This Practice Note outlines the regime established by Directive 93/42/ EEC on medical devices ( MDD), Directive 90/385/ EEC on active implantable medical devices ( AIMDD), which applied until 25 May 2021, and Directive 98/79/ EC on in vitro diagnostic medical devices ( IVDD), which remained in force until 25 May 2022; collectively, the MD Directives. The MD Directives continue to matter for ‘legacy’ devices that were authorised under them for placement on the EEA market before the new rules started to apply. They will also persist as points of reference for several years for particular legacy devices, for differing durations, pursuant to transitional provisions. This Practice Note sets out how devices were...
This Practice Note summarises Regulation ( EU) 2017/745, the Medical Devices Regulation ( MDR), and Regulation ( EU) 2017/746, the In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation ( IVDR), along with the steps for placing a device on the EU market, including how the intricate transitional rules apply to ‘legacy’ devices certified under the former directives system For fuller analysis of how the MD Regulations affect related topics, see the following Practice Notes: The EU Medical Devices Regulation and In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation—scope, classification of devices and Notified Bodies Clinical evaluation and performance evaluation of medical devices in the EU Post-market surveillance of medical devices in the EU The EU Medical Devices Regulation and In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation— EUDAMED and economic operators The EU MDR and IVDR implementing acts and guidance tracker Medical devices— UK and EU...
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
