Featured documents
Introduction to statutory interpretation The aim of statutory interpretation is to determine the legal meaning of a statute, that is, the sense that expresses the legislator’s intention. The clearest guide to that intention is the statutory wording itself, read in its context and with its overall purpose in mind, and its broader legislative setting. Courts should seek to fulfil the purpose of legislation by construing its language, so far as they can, in the manner that most effectively serves that purpose. Put differently, the courts’ default method is purposive, and every enactment is to be construed with that end in view. There is a starting presumption that the grammatical and ordinary sense of an enactment reflects the meaning intended by the legislator. Where an enactment reasonably bears only a single meaning, and no other interpretative tools or
This Practice Note addresses identifying a fiduciary, fiduciary duties and obligations, the no conflict rule, the no profit rule, a fiduciary's duty of confidence, and the remedies available for breach of fiduciary duty. Who is a fiduciary? There is no definitive catalogue of relationships that give rise to fiduciary obligations at common law in every situation universally. Certain relationships are inherently fiduciary, eg trustee and beneficiary, solicitor and client, principal and agent, business partner and co-partners, together with mortgagor and mortgagee. The obligations of some fiduciaries have been set out in statute; for instance, trustees owe a statutory duty of skill and care under section 1 of the Trustee Act 2000 (TrA 2000), and directors' relationships with their companies are addressed in the Companies Act 2006 too. For guidance on directors' fiduciary duties, see Practice Note: of directors for further detailed
Definition of ADR Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is defined in the CPR Glossary as a collective label for methods of settling disputes other than through the usual trial process. Some courts adopt the term ‘negotiated dispute resolution’ (NDR) to describe resolution by alternative means; for ease, this Practice Note uses ADR. For guidance on how ADR is addressed in the various court guides, see Practice Note: ADR and NDR in the court guides. In essence, ADR is a means of resolving a dispute outside the court system. It typically involves a neutral third party who either helps the parties reach a negotiated outcome, or issues a determination of the dispute that is legally binding. A binding result can follow where the agreement to refer the dispute to ADR so provides. There are multiple forms of ADR processes. For an outline of the different types and their
In brief The British constitution is uncodified, meaning it does not spring from a single constitutional document or code. It draws on a wide range of written and unwritten sources. Alongside the principal written sources of law in England and Wales—legislation (which has also introduced international and human rights principles into our constitution) and the common law—the constitution also rests on two further unwritten bases within this system: the prerogative, and non-legal constitutional conventions. In addition, on one view the basic or prevailing principle of our constitution, Parliamentary sovereignty, is ultimately grounded in political fact rather than in law. Legislation Legislation is the foremost source of constitutional law. Acts of Parliament may set out detailed constitutional rules, or even pass authority to create them to ministers or to others. Under the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty, legislation is traditionally regarded as taking precedence over any other form or kind of
Most recent Practice notes
CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 13/05/2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission investigation under Article 102 TFEU into AB In Bev’s obstruction of beer imports into Belgium (case AT.40134). Latest developments On 13 May 2019, the Commission issued an infringement decision concluding that AB In Bev abused its dominant position on Belgium’s beer market and levied a €200.41m fine. Parties Anheuser- Busch In Bev SA ( AB In Bev) is the world’s largest beer brewer. Background The Commission opened proceedings in June 2016. National competition authorities, the European Parliament and consumers had long highlighted concerns that prices for food and drink can differ markedly between neighbouring EU Member States. On 30 November 2017, the Commission sent a Statement of Objections to AB In Bev, setting out its...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Case T- 19/25 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub records the position as at the final decision of 31 October 2024; it is no longer updated. See also timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU probe into Teva, examining whether it abused a dominant position by pursuing conduct designed to postpone competition to its multiple sclerosis treatment, Copaxone ( AT.40588). Latest development On 31 October 2024, the Commission adopted an infringement decision and imposed fines totalling €462.6m on Teva. Parties Teva is a global pharmaceutical group headquartered in Israel, operating through a number of subsidiaries within the EEA. Background In October 2019, the Commission carried out unannounced inspections at the premises of several Teva subsidiaries in the EEA, followed by continued inspections at the......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the decision date of 5 March 2013 and is no longer updated. See the timeline and related cases for more detail. Case facts Outline European Commission investigation under Article 102 TFEU into OPCOM/the Romanian power exchange (case COMP/39.984). The Commission adopted its infringement decision on 05/03/2014, imposing a €1.031m fine. Latest developments On 5 March 2014, the Commission delivered its infringement decision and fined OPCOM and Transelectrica €1.031m, with the two companies held jointly liable. Parties OPCOM and Transelectrica. OPCOM operates Romania’s only power exchange and is 100% owned by Transelectrica. Transelectrica is the operator of the Romanian electricity transmission system. Market(s) Electricity trading on the Romanian wholesale market, namely operation of the power exchange and the facilitation of spot electricity trading in Romania......
CASE HUB NOTE—appeals lodged before the General Court in Cases T- 336/14, T- 441/21, T- 456/21 and T- 462/21, T- 449/21, T- 453/21, T- 455/21 and T- 561/21 See further: timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU inquiry into the sharing of commercially sensitive information and the alignment of trading strategies across the primary and secondary markets for European government bonds ( Case AT.40324). Latest development On 20 May 2021, the Commission adopted its infringement decision, issuing fines totalling €371m against three banks ( Nomura, UBS and Uni Credit). A further four banks were found to have infringed Article 101 TFEU but received no fines (for the reasons outlined below). The allocation is: Nomura—€129.57m UBS—€172.38m (including a 45% reduction for co-operation) Uni Credit—€69.44m Bank of America—no fine (as its infringement fell outside the limitation period for imposing fines) ...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this case hub records the position as at the decision date of 12 December 2016; it is no longer being maintained. See the timeline and commentary for more... Case facts Outline: an Article 101 TFEU inquiry by the European Commission into a cartel in the market for rechargeable lithium‑ion batteries ( AT.39904). The conduct included price‑fixing and exchanging information. Latest development On 12 December 2016, the Commission issued its infringement decision after four manufacturers settled and accepted their participation in the cartel. The fines imposed on the four manufacturers were: Samsung SDI – full immunity (thus avoiding a €57,748,000 fine) Sony – €29,802,000, reflecting a 50% reduction for leniency ......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 5 March 2014; it is no longer maintained. See the timeline, commentary and related cases for further detail. Case facts Outline European Commission investigation under Article 101 TFEU into cartel conduct by two major spot power exchanges ( COMP/39.952). Latest developments On 5 March 2014, the Commission issued its enforcement decision, confirming that EPEX and NPS had settled with the Commission. The combined penalty totalled €5.979m, apportioned as €3.651m for EPEX and €2.328m for NPS. Each company received a 10% reduction in its fine under the Commission’s settlement procedure......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This case hub records the position as at the decision of 21 September 2023; it is no longer updated. See the timeline for more. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU inquiry into a cartel involving the sale of military hand grenades ( AT.40706)......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position as at the date of the decision of 22 November 2017; it is no longer maintained. See also the timeline and commentary Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into four cartels relating to the supply of automotive occupant safety systems (car seatbelts, airbags and steering wheels) to Japanese car manufacturers ( Toyota, Suzuki and Honda) within the EEA. The cartels involved co-ordinating prices or markets and exchanging information Latest development On 22 November 2017, the Commission adopted its infringement decision after five manufacturers settled with the Commission and admitted participation in the four cartels. Combined fines of €34m were imposed......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date to end the investigation on 28 April 2017; it is no longer maintained. See more: timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts ARCHIVE 28/04/2017 Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU probe concerning a cartel within the automotive exhaust systems market sector ( AT.40170). Latest development On 28 April 2017, the Commission ended its inquiry for administrative grounds......
CASE HUB Appeals filed at the General Court in the following matters (see Cases T-251/12 EGL and Others v Commission, et al). ARCHIVED – this case hub captures the position as at the 28 March 2012 decision and is not being updated; see the timeline. It is no longer maintained. Case T-270/12 ( Panalpina) Case T-267/12 ( Deutsche Bahn) Case T-265/12 ( Schenker) Case T-264/12 ( UTi) Case T-254/12 ( Kuehna+Nagel) Case T-251/12 ( EGL) Case facts European Commission Article 101 TFEU probe into price‑fixing cartels in international air freight forwarding services ( COMP/39.462). Outline The investigation addressed collusive conduct impacting international air freight forwarding under Article 101 TFEU. Latest developments On 28 March 2012, the Commission adopted its infringement decision and levied fines totalling €169m. Deutsche Post, together with its subsidiaries DHL and Exel, obtained immunity from financial...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision dated 21 February 2020 and is no longer maintained. For more detail, see the timeline, commentary and related cases... Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU probe into whether hotel accommodation contracts between the largest European tour operators ( Kuoni, REWE, Thomas Cook and TUI) and Meliá Hotels International S. A. contained terms that unlawfully differentiated between customers on the basis of nationality or country of residence ( AT.40528)... Latest development On 21 February 2020, the Commission adopted an infringement decision against Meliá Hotels International S. A., imposing a €6,678,000 fine for concluding agreements with tour operators that curtailed both active and passive sales of hotel accommodation. In light of cooperation provided during the inquiry, Meliá received a 30% reduction. Following an assessment of the evidence and the case...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 29 January 2014; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline European Commission probe under Article 101 TFEU into a cartel in the flexible polyurethane foam market (case reference COMP/39.801). Fines of €114m levied on four firms for a price-fixing cartel. Latest development The Commission issued fines of €114m on 29 January 2014. All companies settled with the Commission. The penalties were as follows: Vita obtained complete immunity from penalties by alerting the Commission to the cartel’s existence and providing full co-operation throughout the inquiry......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 21 February 2018; it is not being maintained. See the timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU inquiry into a cartel in the deep sea transport of vehicles ( AT.40009). The conduct concerned price coordination, customer allocation, and the exchange of information. Latest development On 21 February 2018, the Commission adopted an infringement decision after the five carriers settled with it and admitted involvement in the cartel. Fines totalling €395m were imposed......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at 21 February 2018, the date of the decision; it is no longer maintained. See also the timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU probe into two cartels concerning braking systems. The cartels covered price or market coordination alongside exchanges of information. Latest development On 21 February 2018, the Commission adopted its infringement decision after three suppliers reached a settlement with it and admitted participation in the two cartels. Combined penalties of €75,426,000m were imposed......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This case hub is archived and captures the position as at the decision date of 15 July 2015; it is not currently being updated. See the timeline. Case facts Outline The European Commission conducted an Article 101 TFEU probe into a cartel connected to the marketing of cargo ‘blocktrains’ ( AT.40098). Conduct included division of clientele, exchange of sensitive information and coordination of prices. On 15/07/2015 the Commission adopted its decision and levied fines amounting to €49m. Latest development On 15 July 2015 the Commission stated that, following a settlement, it had adopted its enforcement decision against Express Interfracht (a subsidiary of Österreichische Bundesbahnen), Schenker (a subsidiary of Deutsche Bahn) and Kühne+Nagel, imposing combined penalties of €49.154m; Kühne+Nagel obtained full immunity from fines......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision to accept commitments on 11 July 2024; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission investigation under Article 102 TFEU into whether Apple misused a dominant position in i OS mobile wallet markets on i OS devices ( AT.40452). Latest development On 11 July 2024, the Commission accepted commitments offered by Apple (see details below), thereby closing the investigation. In parallel, it also issued a second decision ending its inquiry into online restrictions and the alleged denial of access to Apple Pay for certain rival products, which the Commission had opened in June 2020. That second decision therefore concluded all proceedings concerning the UK, which no longer forms part of the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position as at the decision date of 15 May 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into Microsoft Corporation’s proposed purchase of Activision Blizzard, Inc. ( M.10646). The deal features horizontal overlaps in the supply of games consoles. Latest developments On 15 May 2023, the Commission approved the transaction subject to commitments. The Commission accepted a set of remedies from Microsoft Corporation to address its competition concerns. Parties Microsoft Corporation ( Microsoft): A global technology enterprise headquartered in Redmond, Washington, US. Microsoft provides a broad array of products and services through three operating segments: (i) Productivity and Business Processes; (ii) Intelligent Cloud; and (iii) More Personal Computing. Microsoft develops and publishes games for PCs, games consoles and mobile devices, and also distributes games for PCs and consoles. It...
The European Central Bank ( ECB) sits at the heart of the Eurosystem and the European System of Central Banks ( ESCB). It replaced the European Monetary Institute on 1 June 1998 and, from 1 January 1999, took full charge of monetary policy decision-making for the euro zone. In 2014, it also took on comprehensive supervisory duties for banks in Member States participating in the Single Supervisory Mechanism. The ECB works alongside the European Supervisory authorities, in particular the European Banking Authority ( EBA). The EBA’s principal role is to help develop the European Single Rulebook in banking, designed to deliver a single set of harmonised prudential rules for financial institutions across the EU. Background to the ECB The ECB was founded under Article 8 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as a specialised, independent organisation for conducting monetary policy....
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the decision date of 9 September 2014 and is no longer being updated. See the timeline and related/relevant cases for further detail. Case facts Outline: European Commission phase II merger inquiry into Cemex’s proposed purchase of selected Holcim assets in Spain ( Case M.7054). The probe was opened after Spain made an Article 22 referral. The deal concerns two of Spain’s foremost cement suppliers. Latest developments The Commission approved the deal without conditions on 9 September 2014. It had sent the merger to an in-depth, phase II review on 23 April 2014, and, on 28 July 2014, extended the phase II deadline by five working days under Article 10(3)(2). Commitments were filed in phase I on 28 March 2014. The case did not reach the EUMR thresholds and was therefore notified to the national...
BREXIT: From 31 January 2020, the UK ceased to be an EU Member State and moved into an implementation phase, during which, for many matters, the EU continues to treat it as if it were a Member State across a range of areas. In its capacity as a third country, the UK is excluded from the EU’s political institutions, agencies, offices, bodies and governance frameworks (save to the limited extent agreed), yet it must keep to its obligations under EU law (covering EU treaties, legislation, principles and international agreements) and remain subject to the ongoing jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union in line with the transitional regime in Part 4 of the Withdrawal Agreement. For further reading, see: Brexit—introduction to the Withdrawal Agreement. This affects this Practice Note. For guidance, see Practice Note: Brexit—impact on finance transactions [ Archived]— Brexit planning and...
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
