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 This Practice Note outlines jurisdiction clauses governed by Article 25 of Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). It addresses matters including derogation; circumstances in which Article 25 of Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) is inapplicable; the status of hybrid clauses; implications for parties outside the EU; and also the criteria for a binding jurisdiction agreement. It provides guidance on derogation from the Regulation’s default allocation of jurisdiction, and clarifies when an agreement will be treated as valid and enforceable. It further considers the hearing process and the evidential threshold required. The Practice Note also discusses how Article 25 applies to the UK as a non- EU Member State (often described as a third state) following its exit from the EU, subject to the operation of transitional provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement. For broader guidance on applying this article to third...
A central tenet of EU competition law is that rival undertakings operate on markets without coordinating their conduct. Generally, active rivalry is expected to deliver maximum consumer welfare, allocate resources most efficiently and, in the context of the EU single market, advance deeper market integration. The European Commission (the Commission), along with other regulators such as national competition authorities, is therefore cautious about arrangements that could soften competitive pressure or remove the commercial uncertainty that should exist between competitors. Nevertheless, businesses may have sound reasons to conclude agreements that include provisions or obligations with the potential to limit competition. This is particularly so where such arrangements are designed to create or encourage beneficial outcomes (efficiencies) that would not materialise in the absence of the restriction embedded in the agreements. Cooperation may sometimes be needed to realise otherwise unattainable...
Defences and exceptions to infringement of EUTMs An EU trade mark ( EUTM) is a single registration that covers every EU Member State. For more on the EUTM regime, see Practice Notes: EU trade marks ( EUTMs) and EU trade marks—legislation. Holding an EUTM grants the proprietor the exclusive right to bar others from using the same or a similar mark in the EU without consent. A trade mark owner can bring infringement proceedings for unauthorised use; for details, see Practice Note: Trade mark infringement— EU. To keep competition in the market place open and fair, there are various defences and exceptions to infringement. This Practice Note examines how these apply to EUTMs. In particular, it addresses: limitations on the effects of an EUTM exhaustion of the rights conferred by an EUTM the intervening right of the proprietor of a...
A structured product is a hybrid investment that can vary in complexity, combining two or more distinct components, such as debt securities and derivatives (including swaps, futures and options). For each component, the rules applicable to that type on a standalone basis should be assessed, alongside requirements that apply specifically to structured products. This Practice Note outlines the key EU regimes that: govern debt securities and derivatives in general; are of particular relevance to structured products; and address securitisations and covered bonds... Structured products involving debt securities For structured products that include debt securities, see Practice Note: EU and UK regulation of the debt capital markets—one minute guide. It covers: Markets in Financial Instruments Directive 2014/65/ EU ( Mi FID II) and Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation ( EU) No 600/2014 ( EU Mi FIR) Regulation ( EU) 2017/1129 ( EU...
Judicial enforcement of EU law Alongside the enforcement tools available to EU institutions via the EU infringement procedure—such as referring matters to the Court of Justice of the European Union—there exist a number of judge-made principles, devised by the Court of Justice of the European Union, to secure the application of EU law within Member States. Put differently, when EU law is not observed, individuals have access to remedies. These principles, which fall within what is commonly termed the judicial enforcement of EU law, are: direct effect indirect effect state liability Their evolution occurred chiefly through the preliminary ruling mechanism, a framework through which national courts of the Member States co-operate and engage in dialogue with the Court of Justice of the European Union so as to achieve a harmonised interpretation of EU law. For further reading, see Practice Note:...
The Commission holds extensive investigatory powers to enforce EU competition law and pursue antitrust infringements, including cartels. Among these, it may require undertakings and associations of undertakings to provide all necessary information... Two types of request for information ( RFI) Article 18 of Regulation 1/2003 provides for two forms of request for information ( RFIs): Simple RFIs, which are voluntary—recipients are not obliged to reply; if they choose to respond, they may leave some questions unanswered. However, they must not submit false or misleading information. A simple RFI should: state the legal basis and the purpose of the request identify the information sought, including documents containing that information set the time-limit for providing the information ...
This Practice Note examines the effect of Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) where same or connected proceedings are ongoing in the courts of a non‑ EU Member State (referred to as a ‘third state’). It sets out the position when duplication appears and claims correspond or are related but fall before tribunals outside the EU, and describes how such circumstances are approached in it. The pertinent provisions of the regulation are Articles 33 and 34 of Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). It also addresses how those provisions apply to the UK as a third state after its exit from the EU, subject to transitional terms in the Withdrawal Agreement. For general guidance on these articles, and other provisions relevant to third states—namely Articles 18(1), 21(2), 24, 25 and 26 of Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I...
This Practice Note summarises the Shareholder Rights Directive II ( SRD II) ( Directive ( EU) 2017/828 amending Directive 2007/36/ EC), highlighting its implications for asset managers and institutional investors. SRD II seeks to foster effective stewardship and long-term investment choices, establishing requirements in areas such as transparency around engagement policies and investment strategies across the institutional investment sphere, together with approval and disclosure obligations for related-party transactions. Scope and overview of SRD II The original Shareholder Rights Directive ( SRD I), introduced in 2009, strengthened shareholder rights by setting minimum standards for exercising voting rights attached to shares in EU-listed companies. SRD I was significantly revised by SRD II, which took effect on 10 June 2019. SRD II assigns rights and duties to listed companies, institutional investors, asset managers, proxy advisers and intermediaries. Investors and asset managers gain greater influence over executive pay and...
STOP PRESS: The EU Listing Act appeared in the Official Journal on 14 November 2024, introducing amendments to the EU Market Abuse Regulation ( EU MAR). The majority of the Act’s measures, including the EU MAR changes, are due to apply from July 2026, conditional on the Commission adopting level 2 delegated acts. Certain EU MAR updates on market soundings and managers’ transactions, however, took effect on 4 December 2024 and are flagged in the relevant sections of this Practice Note. On 7 May 2025, ESMA issued technical advice to the Commission covering, among other matters, EU MAR. On 8 April 2026, the Commission released the final texts of two delegated acts: one addressing the disclosure of inside information and another dealing with, among other aspects, indicators of market manipulation. These delegated acts will be published in the Official Journal of the EU and will enter into...
This monitors and outlines current EU enforcement measures connected to the EU’s Digital Markets Act ( DMA). For details and context on the DMA via the ordinary legislative process, consult: EU Digital Markets Act—progress tracker. For every concluded EU enforcement measure concerning the DMA, refer to here......
This Practice Note This Practice Note explains how EU competition law applies to common practices within the pharmaceutical sector. Given medicines’ vital role in safeguarding public health and the heavy cost they impose on national healthcare systems, the sector consistently faces scrutiny from the European Commission and national competition authorities. Behaviours that threaten patients’ access to innovative, affordable treatments therefore rapidly attract enforcement attention. Historically, the Commission has prioritised cases on ‘ Pay-for-delay’/reverse payment patent settlements. The pharmaceutical sector also has features that set it apart: substantial and high-risk investment to bring a therapy to market; multiple decision-makers shaping therapy choices (eg healthcare professionals ( HCPs), pricing and reimbursement authorities, insurers and hospitals); pervasive price controls; the central importance of intellectual property ( IP) rights; intensive regulation; and pronounced public and political scrutiny. These conditions influence how market incentives and rivalry function in the...
This Practice Note provides an overview of air passenger rights in the EU. It outlines EU guidance on essential definitions, overarching principles, principal obligations, and the mechanisms for enforcing air passenger rights. The Note explains what travellers may expect when their journey is disrupted, covering: flight cancellation delay denied boarding lost baggage It also offers guidance on the legislation applicable to passengers with reduced mobility within the EU, outlining the framework and scope thereof......
What is direct effect of EU law? The doctrine of direct effect is a central principle of EU law fashioned by the Court of Justice of the European Union ( CJEU) in Van Gend en Loos. It provides a route for individuals to rely on EU law to assert rights in the courts of Member States—a remedy where EU obligations are not upheld. In Van Gend en Loos, the relevant EU rule was a Treaty article, i.e. primary law. The transport company Van Gend & Loos had brought goods from Germany into the Netherlands and was required to pay customs duties it regarded as contrary to Article 12 of the EEC Treaty (now Article 30 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( TFEU)), which bars increases in customs duties in trade between Member States. The preliminary reference addressed the...
In brief Settled case law makes clear that only the Court of Justice of the European Union has authority to declare an EU act invalid. Under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( TFEU), the validity of an EU Directive can be contested in several ways: by filing a direct action for annulment before the Court of Justice under Article 263 TFEU; by challenging the Directive’s validity indirectly in proceedings before a national court. Such proceedings are aimed at the national measures used to transpose the Directive, and the national court may request the Court of Justice to examine the Directive’s validity via the preliminary reference route in Article 267 TFEU; by invoking a collateral challenge under Article 277 TFEU (plea of illegality) attached to a principal direct action brought under Article 263...
Article 8(1) of Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) This Practice Note examines Article 8(1) of Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) and the court’s jurisdiction when proceedings involve multiple defendants. Courts in an EU Member State may assume special jurisdiction over a dispute even where a co-defendant is not domiciled in that state, but only if specific conditions are fulfilled. This Practice Note reviews those conditions and the way the Court of Justice has applied them in practice. In particular, it addresses the meaning of ‘irreconcilable judgments’ and ‘anchor defendants’. This Practice Note does not consider the application of Article 8 to competition law infringement cases. Article 8 of Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) also provides three additional grounds on which a court could claim special jurisdiction. For guidance, see Practice Note: Brussels I...
Article 102 TFEU bans undertakings holding a dominant position within the EU, or a substantial part of it, from abusing that position where their conduct may affect trade between Member States. It is often difficult to determine whether a company is ‘dominant’ for EU competition law. Dominance does not inevitably mean a majority market share; however, a firm with about 50% will typically be treated as dominant. Unless a company has faced earlier competition cases, or there have been merger findings identifying dominance, it can be unclear whether it is legally dominant. This Practice Note looks more closely at what amounts to a ‘dominant position’... The legal test The Court of Justice describes dominance as a degree of economic strength that allows an undertaking to prevent effective competition from being maintained on the relevant market, conferring the capacity to act to a...
ARCHIVED This Practice Note is archived and no longer maintained. This tracker is no longer being updated. For cases released in 2026, see Practice Note: EU competition law 2026—cases tracker. For matters published between September 2022 and December 2024, see Practice Note: EU competition law–cases tracker (2022–2024) [ Archived]. This Practice Note monitors the latest developments in notable EU competition law cases. The EU competition law cases tracker is split into the following sections: Antitrust cases Merger cases Private action cases State aid cases For more 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 2025 This table highlights significant antitrust cases from January 2025, listed in reverse chronological order. Case C-545/25 P( I) České dráhy v...
ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. The UK is no longer bound by the Rome Convention in international law after leaving the EU. Even so, its substantive rules still apply in limited instances, ie where a contract was concluded between 1 April 1991 and 16 December 2009 and meets the act’s criteria. As a result, those rules are preserved in C( AL) A 1990, subject to amendments in The Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non– Contractual Obligations ( Amendment etc) ( EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 2019/834. For the current position, see Practice Note: Contracts ( Applicable Law) Act 1990—parties fail to choose the applicable law. It covers: the basic rule where no choice is made—the governing law is that of the country most closely connected, determined by the contract’s characteristic performance the presumptions used to identify the closest...
The removal of internal border checks across the Schengen Area stands as one of the EU’s landmark achievements, shaping and embedding the European societal model and way of life. Yet major developments—such as the coronavirus ( COVID-19) pandemic and rising irregular migration—have exposed shortcomings and loopholes in Schengen border management. To address the migration challenges faced by Member States and to uphold border-free movement within Schengen, significant revisions were adopted in 2024. This Practice Note concentrates on Regulation ( EU) 2016/399, the Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (codification), which sets out the conditions for movement to and from the area without internal border control, as well as between participating Member States. It also reflects the 2024 amendments, drawing out the principal features of the current framework and outlining the accompanying instruments that clarify how the...
Use this Practice Note when identifying the applicable law for agreements made on or after 17 December 2009. It outlines when and for what reasons Regulation ( EC) 593/2008, Rome I was brought in. The Note reviews the implementation of Regulation ( EC) 593/2008, Rome I, the states that have signed up and are therefore bound by it, together with any reservations those states have entered. It explains why the regulation governs contractual disputes within the UK. Guidance is given on interpreting Regulation ( EC) 593/2008, Rome I, followed by consideration of the universal application rule (art 2) and the breadth of the applicable law (art 12). It sets out the general principles alongside rules tailored to particular categories of contract. It also identifies matters excluded from Regulation ( EC) 593/2008, Rome I, including arbitration and questions relating to the status and legal...
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
