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
Licensing IP rights—introduction Preparing IP licences often throws up intricate commercial and legal considerations, typically demanding extensive bargaining. This Practice Note highlights the principal, practical matters to weigh up before you draft and while you negotiate an IP licence, seen from both licensor and licensee viewpoints. At its core, an IP licence is the licensor’s consent allowing the licensee to use IP that it would otherwise be barred from exploiting. Owners may exploit and commercialise IP as either a carrot or a stick. Parties might agree terms for a mutually advantageous licence to create new offerings or reach fresh markets. Equally, an owner may take a defensive stance, pressing for settlement licences and recovering settlement payments from those already using its IP without permission. Accordingly, the initial position and broader commercial context will heavily influence both the negotiations and the eventual licence terms......
Background— EU law in the UK Pre-exit day The European Communities Act 1972 ( ECA 1972) was enacted to implement the United Kingdom’s obligations, as a Member State, under the relevant EU treaties and to ensure adherence to EU law. Under ECA 1972, s 2(1), certain EU rights and obligations intended to have direct effect applied in the UK without the need for additional domestic legislation. This encompassed rights under the EU Treaties and EU regulations setting out detailed legal rules. Other forms of EU law took effect via UK regulations made under ECA 1972, s 2(2), or, in some circumstances, through separate Acts of Parliament. This pathway covered EU directives, which stipulate overarching aims or frameworks while leaving each Member State to make its own provision to secure the required legal outcome. In its operation within Member States, EU law is...
This Practice Note explores the following data protection, privacy and security matters arising in connection with the use of autonomous and connected vehicle technology: The technology Declaration of Amsterdam Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems ( C- ITS) United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 Cybersecurity The Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 Connected and autonomous vehicles in the EU International Practical issues For further detail and context on additional UK legal considerations linked to this technology, see the Practice Notes: Autonomous vehicles—key legal issues and Autonomous vehicles and insurance, and for a concise overview of dates and key points, see: UK automated vehicles—tracker. To monitor developments within the EU, also consult the Practice Notes: Automated vehicles—key legal issues in the EU and EU automated vehicles—tracker. The technology Contemporary vehicles already incorporate a suite of external communications, such as satellite navigation, in-car entertainment and emergency assistance, capable of...
When collaborators join forces on creative projects or research and development, knotty questions arise about who owns any resulting IP. Joint ownership can appear a straightforward and equitable answer where efforts were shared and the contributions cannot be disentangled. Yet, without careful thought about how jointly created IP will be owned, organised and exploited, parties may face legal traps, practical hurdles and limits on full commercialisation. In the great majority of cases, it is preferable to put in place an express agreement on joint ownership of IP rather than depend on the default legal position... This Practice Note provides an overview of the law on joint ownership of IP (also known as co-ownership, used interchangeably in this note): Implied joint ownership—basic principles Implied joint ownership—risks and obstacles Joint ownership agreements—key considerations Alternatives to joint ownership of IP ...
The UK GDPR regime This Practice Note offers a concise high‑level overview of the rules concerning cross‑border scope and the designation and appointment of representatives under the following: the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation ( EU) 2016/679 ( EU GDPR) framework; and the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation ( EU) 2016/679 ( UK GDPR) framework (in force under UK law from the close of the Brexit implementation period on 31 December 2020) Assimilated law is the label applied to retained EU law ( REUL) that continues to operate after the end of 2023. Re‑classification of REUL (and related terminology) as assimilated law signals a shift in its status and handling under UK law, so that it is, in general, construed in line with ordinary UK domestic legal doctrines and principles. From 1 January 2024, REUL is ‘assimilated’ into domestic law because it is...
Tracker Use this Tracker to confirm if a state is a signatory to the Hague Convention on Choice of Courts Agreements and whether the Convention is already in effect for that jurisdiction. Albania — In force: 1 October 2024. Ratified: 25 June 2024. Signed: 13 February 2024. HCCH website: Albania—the Convention enters into force; HCCH website: Albania signs the Choice of Court Agreements Convention; HCCH notification: Albania ratifies the Choice of Court Agreements Convention. Australia — Signed: No. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in 2017 backed accession to the Convention and advised that binding treaty action be undertaken. For information, see Australian Parliament— Convention on Choice of Courts accession. Bahrain — In force: 1 July 2025. Acceded: 13 March 2025. For information, see: Bahrain accedes to the Choice Of Court Convention. China — Approval, ratified or...
This Practice Note reviews the provisions for declining vexatious or repeated requests under section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ( FIA 2000). Vexatious or repeated requests―scope of the exemption Section 14 sits within FIA 2000, Pt I, which prescribes in detail how requests made under the statute should be managed. Although it is not included among the right to know exemptions listed in FIA 2000, Pt II, in practice it operates to the same effect, as it allows a public authority to refuse a request for information in specified circumstances. section 14(1) effectively releases public authorities from the duty set out in FIA 2000, s 1(1), namely to confirm whether information is held and, if it is, to disclose it to the requester. This applies where the request is vexatious. FIA 2000 does not further define...
This archived Practice Note sets out information on the data protection landscape before 25 May 2018 and reflects the position under the Data Protection Act 1998 ( DPA 1998). It is provided for background only and is not maintained. From 25 May 2018, the General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation ( EU) 2016/679 (the GDPR), introduced significant reforms to EU and UK data protection law, replacing the DPA 1998 and Directive 95/46/ EC (the Data Protection Directive). For later guidance on Model Clauses under the GDPR, see Practice Note: UK GDPR and EU GDPR—transfers of personal data internationally and to international organisations— Article 46 tools... Model Clauses—an overview This practice note outlines the EU Standard Contractual Clauses (also referred to as Model Clauses) that have been approved by the European Commission (the Commission). These standard-form clauses enable organisations to transfer personal data to a non- EEA third...
ARCHIVED : This Practice Note has been archived is not maintained. This archived Practice Note is not maintained. It brings together and distils notable historic decisions and case law outcomes connected to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ( FIA 2000). For the most recent developments in case law, see the Freedom of information case tracker. Under each heading, the tables identify significant rulings from: Court of Appeal Upper Tribunal ( UT) First Tier Tribunal ( Information Rights) ( FTT) Information Commissioner’s Office ( ICO) For ease of use, the tracker is organised by the principal provisions and issues addressed under the FIA 2000, including: information held by a public authority requirements for a valid freedom of information request fees and cost of compliance time frame for compliance means of communicating information vexatious and repeated...
This Practice Note focuses on the key points for public authorities to consider when complying with a freedom of information request. Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ( FIA 2000), a public authority is required to answer any valid request for information made by any individual, wherever in the world they are, as required by the Act. On receiving a valid request, the authority must confirm or deny in writing whether it holds the specified information and, if it does, provide it to the applicant, unless an exemption applies. When a request is received, an authority should: log the date on which the request was received assess whether the request satisfies validity requirements ascertain if information matching the stated description is held estimate the likely cost of compliance decide whether charging a fee is...
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 ( FIA 2000) The Freedom of Information Act 2000 ( FIA 2000) provides a right to access information held by public authorities. Under this right, any individual making a valid request to a public authority is entitled: to receive written confirmation from the authority as to whether it holds the information sought and, if so, to have that information communicated to them Consequently, public authorities are obliged to confirm or deny in writing whether they hold the requested material and, where they do, to provide it to the applicant. Who is caught by the regime The regime applies to ‘public authorities’, a term defined in FIA 2000 to include any body, any other person, or the holder of any office that is: listed in FIA 2000, Sch 1 designated as such by an order of the...
ARCHIVED : This Practice Note is archived as of July 2020. On 31 January 2020, the UK left EU membership and entered a transition period during which EU law still applied. Throughout that time, the EU’s GDPR continued to operate in the UK and, for EEA and UK data protection purposes, the UK was broadly treated as an EU (and EEA) state. Accordingly, any mentions of EEA or EU states in this Practice Note should be taken to include the UK until the transition period ended. For additional guidance, see Practice Note: Brexit—implications for data protection [ Archived]. After the Brexit transition ended: The EU GDPR was, in UK law, replaced by a UK GDPR regime closely modelled on the EU GDPR, including a like-for-like Article 17 (right to erasure); see Practice Note: The UK General Data Protection Regulation ( UK GDPR). ...
ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note sets out a synopsis of the exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ( FIA 2000) and examines the exemptions invoked by public authorities in the first decade of the regime. It reviews the most effective exemptions (from the public authority’s standpoint), judged by decisions upheld or partly upheld by the Information Commissioners Office ( ICO). The note also offers a statistical overview of trends in complaints referred to the ICO. This Practice Note is not maintained and is provided for background information only. Method of analysis Under the FIA 2000, a requester may seek any information held by a public authority. Part II of the FIA 2000 sets out a range of specific exemptions from the general right of access to information. These exemptions exist chiefly to protect...
A co-operative or community benefit society ( CCBS), previously termed an industrial and provident society ( IPS), is a limited liability corporate body that organisations may use to run a business either as a co-operative serving members’ mutual interests, or as a community benefit society operating for the good of a community. This Practice Note sets out the legal framework, organisational structure and the registration process for these societies. It also makes extensive reference to the FCA’s finalised guidance on registered societies, with sections addressing governing rules, share capital, name, transfer of engagements, conversion, amalgamation, dissolution and winding up. What is a co-operative or community benefit society? A co-operative society or community benefit society (historically called an industrial and provident society) is a registered society—also described as a society—and a corporate body with limited liability that can be used by...
ARCHIVED This Practice Note is archived and is no longer maintained. The UK freedom of information framework is governed by these principal instruments: Freedom of Information Act 2000 ( FIA 2000) Freedom of Information and Data Protection ( Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004, SI 2004/3244 The Information Commissioner’s Office ( ICO) oversees the use of, and access to, information. It publishes guidance to support public authorities in applying FIA 2000. That guidance defines the scope of FIA 2000, sets out the duties imposed on public authorities, and clarifies the rights of members of the public when making information requests. The Freedom of Information Code of Practice provides direction to authorities on meeting their responsibilities under FIA 2000. Although the code is not itself binding, failing to adhere to it is likely to give rise to a related breach under FIA...
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 ( FIA 2000) grants a general public right to access information held by public authorities, requiring each authority to confirm if the requested material is held and, where it is, to supply that information. This access right is not unrestricted, and FIA 2000 contains several exemptions reflecting circumstances where disclosure could harm the proper functioning of the public sector. Legal professional privilege Legal professional privilege is a legal rule safeguarding communications connected to securing legal advice. There are two forms of legal professional privilege—legal advice privilege and litigation privilege. Legal advice privilege covers communications between a client and their lawyer that form part of the process of providing legal advice. This privilege applies regardless of any actual or contemplated court proceedings. By contrast, litigation privilege only arises when litigation is a reality or reasonably in prospect, and it extends beyond...
Football Data Co ( FD) manages the data rights of the professional football leagues, granting licences to third parties to reproduce specified IP—such as fixture lists and statistics—owned by the UK’s three professional football leagues. FD, alongside the English and Scottish Football leagues, brought a series of actions against sports data, pools and betting companies that made fixture list details available to their users, including for betting services and online information services. The claims alleged copyright and database right infringement in the fixture lists. For the procedural history and further factual background, see the Football Dataco v Stan James case. This Practice Note highlights the key points arising from the different proceedings. The Stan James action 11 February 2009—the action commenced On 11 February 2009, the Stan James action was issued in the High Court. The initial claim advanced two distinct...
Cyber risk, like any other corporate exposure, demands careful management and should be treated as a high‑priority concern for the internal compliance or legal team. It is a business issue to be addressed within an overarching information governance, risk management and crime prevention framework, and must not be left solely to the IT department. This Practice Note covers: the landscape around cybercrime (i.e. why it should be on your radar) the threats cybercrime poses to commercial organisations, and principal vulnerabilities This Practice Note reflects information security and breach notification obligations in the General Data Protection Regulation ( UK GDPR), Assimilated Regulation ( EU) 2016/679, but is not intended to address specialist sector‑specific requirements in the: Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018 ( NIS Regulations), SI 2018/506 Privacy and Electronic Communications ( EC Directive) Regulations 2003 ( PECR 2003), SI...
ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and not maintained. It considers the Public Bodies Act 2011 ( PBA 2011) and the contractual effects that should be assessed where a public body or business is impacted by it. Background On 14 October 2010, Francis Maude, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, set out in a written ministerial statement that the arrangements for public bodies required radical reform to enhance transparency and accountability, eliminate duplicated activity, and bring to an end work that is no longer necessary. In response, the PBA 2011 received Royal Assent on 14 December 2011. The Act is intended to enable the government to simplify the landscape of public bodies by, among other measures, abolishing so‑called quangos (ie quasi‑autonomous non‑governmental organisations). Quangos include non‑departmental public bodies ( NDPBs), a term commonly used by the government......
Boilerplate provisions in public sector contracts This Practice Note examines freedom of information clauses in public sector contracts. For further detail on what contracting authorities and other interested parties should be aware of when deploying boilerplate terms in public sector agreements, see Practice Note: Boilerplate provisions in public sector agreements: general considerations. Public procurement reform The Procurement Bill secured Royal Assent on 26 October 2023, becoming the Procurement Act 2023 ( PA 2023). See: Procurement Bill [ HL]— LNB News 12/05/2022 14 and Procurement Bill receives Royal Assent— LNB News 26/10/2023 81. From 24 February 2025, the principal provisions of PA 2023 are in force, and procurements commenced on or after that date must proceed under PA 2023. Earlier procurements remain governed by the existing public procurement framework, including: Public Contracts Regulations 2015 ( PCR 2015) and Procurement Practice Notes ( PPNs) Utilities...
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
