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
ARCHIVED This Practice Note has been archived and is no longer maintained. STOP PRESS This tracker has been replaced by Practice Note: EU artificial intelligence—key developments tracker, which follows key future developments in EU AI law, and Practice Note: EU artificial intelligence—key developments tracker, which captures key past developments in EU AI law. This tracker outlined key dates and details on legal issues linked to the development of artificial intelligence ( AI) technology in the EU, including these principal AI legislative initiatives: EU AI Liability Directive (withdrawn) Council of Europe convention on artificial intelligence, human rights, democracy and the rule of law (adopted) EU AI Act (adopted) It also set out timelines for: Implementing and delegated acts related to the EU AI Act EU and international AI guidance Other AI materials For more information, see: Initiatives related to data in AI—...
UK status Since 31 January 2020 (exit day), the UK has not been an EU Member State. Under the Withdrawal Agreement there followed an implementation period during which EU law still applied to the UK. From 1 January 2021, however, the key operative elements of Regulation ( EU) 2015/848 ( OJ L141 5.6.2015 p 19), the Recast Regulation on Insolvency, concerning automatic recognition, ceased to apply in the UK (see Practice Note: Brexit—impact on Recast Regulation on Insolvency [ Archived]). Other Member States nevertheless continue to apply the EU Recast Regulation on Insolvency when its conditions are met, and this note considers how it functions between Member States. EU Recast Regulation on Insolvency The EU Recast Regulation on Insolvency introduced substantial changes to the EC Regulation on Insolvency, Regulation ( EC) 1346/2000 ( EC Regulation on Insolvency). For the full text of the EU Recast...
Background to the Joint Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities The Joint Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities (the Board of Appeal) functions as a collective body of the European Supervisory Authorities (the Authorities), namely: European Banking Authority ( EBA) European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority ( EIOPA) European Securities and Markets Authority ( ESMA) For further information on the Authorities, see Practice Note: The European Supervisory Authorities ( ESAs) and the European System of Financial Supervision, and the Lexis+® UK Banking & Finance Practice Note: The European Supervisory Authorities ( ESAs) and the European System of Financial Supervision. The Board of Appeal considers complaints against decisions made by the Authorities. Its rulings can be appealed before the Court of Justice of the European Union ( CJEU). Individuals currently serving within national competent authorities, or other national or EU bodies...
FORTHCOMING CHANGE: This Practice Note sets out the law as it presently stands, though some aspects will be affected by the Digital Omnibus proposals issued on 19 November 2025 under the EU Commission’s ‘simplification’ programme. For more detail, see Practice Note: EU Digital Omnibus—tracker. It explores legal and practical issues around anonymisation, pseudonymisation and privacy enhancing technologies ( PETs). It outlines what is required for robust anonymisation and pseudonymisation and summarises core techniques available. It further introduces the family of tools referred to as PETs. The analysis is framed by the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation ( EU) 2016/679 ( EU GDPR), alongside relevant guidance. Anonymisation and pseudonymisation Under the EU GDPR, duties apply to the processing of ‘personal data’, meaning information about a living person who is identified or can be identified. While the EU GDPR provides no explicit definition of...
Article 101(1) TFEU outlaws agreements liable to affect trade between Member States whose object or effect is to prevent, restrict, or distort competition within the common market. Nonetheless, EU case law makes clear that limiting a party’s economic freedom does not automatically amount to a ‘restriction of competition’ under Article 101(1). The Court of Justice has suggested, for example, that it can be doubtful there is any interference with competition where a clause truly appears necessary for an undertaking’s move into a new area. That observation gave rise to the ‘ancillary restraints doctrine’, with the EU Courts and the European Commission ( Commission) acknowledging that certain limitations are not ‘restrictions of competition’ within Article 101(1) when, having regard to the ‘legal and economic context’, they are shown to be necessary to protect the parties’ legitimate interests under the...
The amendment of the EU Treaties is essential for the development of the European Union This enables the Union’s laws and policies to be adjusted over time to fresh challenges that the EU must confront, and to deepen the level of integration already attained. Prior to the Lisbon Treaty taking effect, there was only a single route available for revising the Treaties. That path mandated a compulsory Intergovernmental Conference ( IGC), meaning a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States, convened by the President of the Council on a compulsory basis. In light of the protracted period required to reach agreement on Lisbon, its authors opted to permit, in the years ahead, limited Treaty changes without the obligation to hold an IGC. The Lisbon Treaty also amended the ordinary revision process slightly, by strengthening the involvement of the European...
ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note considers the competition implications of adopting agency as a route to market. It was produced with the former Vertical Restraints Block Exemption Regulation 330/2010 and the 2010 Guidelines in mind—now replaced by the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation 2022/720 ( VBER 2022) and the 2022 Guidelines on Vertical Restraints (2022 Guidelines). This Practice Note is not kept up to date and is supplied for background purposes only. For an assessment of agency under Article 101 TFEU, the VBER 2022 and the 2022 Guidelines, see the relevant sections within Introduction to the application of Article 101 TFEU to vertical agreements, The Vertical Block Exemption Regulation 2022/720 and Analysing vertical agreements outside the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation 2022/720... A supplier can choose from several methods to distribute its offering. A supplier may: sell products or services directly appoint a...
Aftermarkets Aftermarkets matter greatly to producers of sophisticated technical equipment and to businesses following a ‘razors and razor blades’ commercial model. Competition concerns in aftermarkets are not limited to a single sector. While many disputes feature the technology industry, similar issues have appeared across a broad range of other fields. a primary product (eg equipment, hardware or software), and an aftermarket good or service (eg parts, repair services, or software support) The decisive arena is the downstream aftermarket, which frequently delivers highly profitable, repeat revenues coveted by proprietary equipment manufacturers as a way to recoup significant research and development spend. Independent service organisations ( ISOs) and other third parties offering rival aftermarket goods or services often clash with manufacturers. Producers may seek to avoid enabling ISO competition, while ISOs operating solely in the aftermarket may view competition from...
Pursuant to Article 20 of the IDD, producers of non-life insurance, such as motor insurance or home contents policies, must prepare an Insurance Product Information Document ( IPID), which distributors are obliged to give customers before the insurance contract is finalised. This Practice Note outlines the IPID requirements in Directive ( EU) 2016/97, the Insurance Distribution Directive, which replaced the Insurance Mediation Directive (2002/92/ EC) from 1 October 2018. For more information on the IDD, see: EU Insurance Distribution Directive ( IDD)—essentials EU Insurance Distribution Directive ( IDD)—scope, registration, passporting and sanctions EU Insurance Distribution Directive ( IDD)—organisational and conduct of business requirements EU Insurance Distribution Directive ( IDD)—insurance-based investment products Requirements of the IPID Article 20 of the IDD Before a contract is entered into, whether or not advice is given and regardless of any bundling, the distributor must supply the...
The notion of ‘single and continuous infringement’ ( SCI) allows the European Commission ( Commission), and national competition authorities more broadly, to treat a chain of breaches of Article 101 TFEU as one and the same cartel conduct, on the basis that they form part of a unified overall scheme... Rationale behind the SCI concept When a long-running and intricate cartel is under scrutiny, its reach, shape and participants can vary over time. This creates, among other things, the following challenges for the Commission: a heavier evidential burden, because the Commission would have to establish and substantiate: that there were multiple discrete anti-competitive agreements and/or concerted practices, and which undertakings took part in each instance a possible limitation issue in relation to the more...
This Practice Note reviews the various articles contained in Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) that address the domicile of claimant and defendant, and explains how the provisions operate. Under Article 4 of Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), the general rule is that a defendant should be sued in the courts of their domicile where they are domiciled in an EU Member State, whereas Article 63 of that Regulation identifies the jurisdiction for proceedings against a company or corporation. Where the claimant is the weaker party, eg consumer or insurance matters, special rules permit the claimant to bring proceedings in their own domicile rather than that of the defendant. For defendants not domiciled in an EU Member State, Article 6 applies. Domicile of the claimant When assessing jurisdiction, the claimant’s domicile is of relevance in a limited set of...
The Mi FID II passporting regime Among the key features of the recast Markets in Financial Instruments Directive ( Directive 2014/65/ EU) ( Mi FID II) and the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation ( Regulation ( EU) 600/2014) ( Mi FIR) (together, the Mi FID II framework) is the facility for investment firms authorised in one EEA Member State to deliver services in others, either cross-border (for example by telephone or the internet) or by opening a branch in another Member State, without needing separate authorisation in each jurisdiction where they operate. This is termed ‘passporting’. This Practice Note examines the regulatory scheme that applies to passporting and also addresses access arrangements for multilateral trading facilities ( MTFs), organised trading facilities ( OTFs) and regulated markets ( RMs) in other Member States. For details of the avenues open to...
This Practice Note outlines that Article 24 of Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012 ( Brussels I (recast)) grants to the courts in any EU Member State exclusive authority to rule on certain specific categories of claims, regardless of the defendant’s domicile or any contrary party agreement. It addresses disputes concerning immovable property ( Article 24(1)); matters relating to a company’s constitution, corporate governance, and the validity of decisions or acts ( Article 24(2)); entries in public registers ( Article 24(3)); intellectual property rights ( Article 24(4)); and proceedings for the enforcement of judgments ( Article 24(5)). For general guidance on how this article applies to third states, and on other provisions of the regulation pertinent to third states—namely Articles 18(1), 21(2), 25, 26, 33 and 34 of Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast)—see Practice Note: Brussels I...
The Mortgage Credit Directive ( Directive 2014/17/ EU) ( MCD) sets a common framework for EU Member States governing mortgage credit to consumers secured on, or otherwise connected to, residential immovable property. This Practice Note outlines the background, aims and scope of the MCD and highlights its principal provisions. Adoption and implementation of the Mortgage Credit Directive The MCD was published in the Official Journal of the EU on 28 February 2014 and came into force on 20 March 2014 (the twentieth day after publication). Member States had two years to implement it, by 21 March 2016. The MCD aims to: avoid a recurrence of irresponsible lending and borrowing build a more effective and competitive single market for mortgages boost consumer trust and enhance customer mobility deliver a level playing field and encourage cross-border...
Copyright describes a bundle of rights granted to makers of creative output, covering: literary, dramatic, artistic and musical works broadcasts and databases sound recordings typographical arrangements Alongside the economic rights initially vested in the creator or author, the term can also encompass extra, personal entitlements for authors and performers—often called moral rights or neighbouring rights. Moral rights are not generally harmonised at EU level and alleged infringements of them are not specifically considered in this Practice Note. For guidance on the subsistence of copyright within the EU, see Practice Note: EU— Copyright subsistence. EU copyright legislation Copyright is not yet comprehensively harmonised across the EU. Nevertheless, over the past three decades a framework of directives and regulations on copyright and neighbouring rights has developed, supplemented by a substantial body of case law interpreting that legislation. The outcome is a high—though not absolute—degree of harmonisation that has grown over time....
This Practice Note summarises Directive ( EU) 2023/2225 on consumer credit agreements ( CCD II), which will revoke and succeed the existing Consumer Credit Directive, Directive 2008/48/ EC ( CCD I). Driven by swift technological change in the consumer credit arena and the rise of novel credit products since CCD I in 2008, CCD II widens the regime’s coverage, refines information duties to suit digital devices, tightens creditworthiness checks, and brings in further safeguards to prevent consumer exploitation, all of which will materially affect the EU consumer credit market... Date of application of CCD II The text of CCD II appeared in the Official Journal of the European Union on 30 October 2023 and came into force on 19 November 2023. EU Member States must adopt and publish the necessary implementing laws and regulations by 20 November 2025, and must apply the rules from 20...
This Practice Note follows the latest developments in notable EU competition law cases. The EU competition law cases tracker is organised into the following categories: Antitrust cases 2026 Merger cases 2026 Private action cases 2026 State aid cases 2026 For 2025 cases, see Practice Note: EU competition law 2025—cases tracker [ Archived]. For cases from September 2022 to December 2024, see Practice Note: EU competition law–cases tracker (2022–2024) [ Archived]. For information on EU competition law legislation, guidance and policy developments, see Practice Notes: EU competition horizon scanning—2026 and beyond EU block exemptions revision—tracker EU Digital Markets Act—progress tracker Antitrust cases 2026 This table records significant antitrust cases since January 2026. Entries appear in reverse chronological order. Case T-87/25 Westfälisches Textilwerk Adolf Ahlers v Commission — Sector: Pierre Cardin-licensed clothing and accessories for men, women and children — Latest...
Legal privilege is the principal way a company can refuse to disclose a confidential communication or document to a third party, such as a competition authority or the court. Whether a communication benefits from privilege depends on who is involved in the exchange and the purpose for which the document was created. The scope of legal privilege can vary, sometimes considerably, depending on the jurisdiction and the nature of the proceedings. Why is legal privilege important? Privilege matters because it can operate as an absolute bar to disclosure in the following scenarios: on-site inspections under competition law by competition and regulatory authorities (‘dawn raids’), requests for documents made by competition or regulatory authorities, and disclosure obligations in court proceedings EU legal privilege The legal position EU law does not expressly recognise legal privilege, whether in Articles 101 and 102 TFEU or in the...
There are two classes of family members of EU nationals under Directive 2004/38/ EC (the Citizens' Directive): 'family members'—who enjoy the Citizens’ Directive’s full protections as an entitlement, individuals in 'durable relationships' with an EU national and 'other family members'—for whom Member States must facilitate entry and residence under their domestic rules This Practice Note addresses ‘family members’ as defined in Article 2 of the Citizens’ Directive. For information on durable partners and ‘other family members’, see Practice Note: ' Durable relationships’ and ‘other family members’ of EU nationals—definitions and rights of entry and residence. Note that, throughout, ' EU nationals' also covers nationals of the European Economic Area ( EEA), comprising the EU Member States together with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. Switzerland is party to the Agreement between the EU and the Confederation of Switzerland, with free movement rules that are very similar to those set out in...
This Practice Note considers the exception to the lis pendens rule as set out in Article 31(2) of Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). Article 31(2) is engaged only where the parties have entered into an exclusive jurisdiction agreement (often referred to as an exclusive choice of court agreement); it does not apply where the arrangement is a non-exclusive jurisdiction agreement. When this provision is triggered, the court named in the agreement may assess its own jurisdiction even though it is not the court first seised of the dispute. For completeness, the general lis pendens mechanism is contained in Article 29(1) of Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast)......
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
