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
Class actions— India— Q& A guide This Practice Note provides a jurisdiction-specific Q& A on class actions in India, featured in the Lexology Getting the Deal Through series by Law Business Research (law stated as at 28 September 2022). Authors: Krishnamurthy & Co— Ayush Agarwala; Arushi Kaulaskar. 1. Outline the organisation of your court system as it relates to collective or representative actions (class actions). In which courts may class actions be brought? In India, collective or representative mechanisms derive from several enactments, including the Companies Act 2013, Civil Procedure Code 1908, Competition Act 2002, Consumer Protection Act 2013, Industrial Disputes Act 1947, and the Constitution of India 1950, as set out below: Under the Civil Procedure Code 1908 ( CPC), civil courts in India ( District Courts and High Courts of certain states) can hear suits filed in a...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub states the position as at the decision date of 21 September 2016; it is no longer maintained or updated. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline The Belgian Hof van Beroep te Brussel referred a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, seeking clarification on whether a domestic rule fixing the pricing of tobacco products on the domestic market (in particular, obliging retailers not to sell below specified thresholds) complies, among other matters, with Article 101 TFEU (read together with Article 4(3) TEU) and the ‘free movement’ provisions in Article 34 TFEU. On 21 September 2016, the Court of Justice held that Article 34 TFEU and Article 101 TFEU (the latter construed alongside Article 4(3) TEU) do not prevent a national measure banning price promotions for...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgments of 19 December 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timelinecommentary and related/similar cases. Case facts Outline of cases: C-582/18 P Viscas Corp v Commission, C-589/18 P Furukawa Electric Co Ltd v Commission, and C-590/18 P Fujikura Ltd v Commission—three appeals to the Court of Justice directed at the General Court’s judgments in T-422/14, T-444/14 and T-451/14. Those judgments had dismissed actions seeking to annul the Commission’s decision concerning the cartel in high-voltage power cables ( AT.39610). Each appeal targeted the rejection of their annulment actions. Latest development On 28 November 2019, the Court of Justice delivered its rulings in C-582/18 P Viscas Corp v Commission, C-589/18 P Furukawa Electric Co Ltd v Commission and C-590/18 P Fujikura Ltd v Commission, being appeals from the General Court’s judgments in...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 2 April 2020 and is no longer actively maintained at this time. See further, the timeline, commentary, and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 228/18 Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Budapest Bank Nyrt. and Others—a national reference from Hungary seeking clarification on the line between restrictions by object and by effect under Article 101(1) TFEU. Latest developments On 2 April 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its ruling. The Court of Justice held that identical conduct may constitute both a restriction by object and a restriction by effect on competition within Article 101(1) TFEU. As regards whether the Hungarian multilateral interchange fee ( MIF) agreement is a restriction by object, that assessment falls to the referring court to make......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this case hub is preserved as at the judgment dated 26 November 2015 and is no longer updated. See also: timeline, commentary and related or relevant cases Case facts Outline National reference by the Latvian Augstākā tiesa to the Court of Justice seeking a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU to determine, in particular, whether a restrictive covenant in retail lease agreements (a non‑compete) constitutes a restriction ‘by object’ within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU. On 26 November 2015, the Court of Justice decided that a restrictive covenant in retail lease agreements (a non‑compete) is not a restriction ‘by object’ for the purposes of Article 101(1) TFEU; however, this does not prevent it being found to infringe that provision following a full and proper analysis of its ‘effects’. The issue illustrates the potential reach of competition law in relation to land...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 16 July 2020 and is no longer maintained. For additional information, consult the timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 686/18 Adusbef and Others—arising from a national reference from Italy—asks whether a domestic rule—which, among other matters, compels a co‑operative bank to transform into a private company once a specified asset threshold is surpassed—contravenes Article 107 TFEU. Latest developments On 16 July 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, rejecting the competition limb of the reference (ie Question 3) as inadmissible. The Court held that the Council of State had not supplied the information required to assess whether the measure at issue could be treated as ‘ State aid’ within the meaning of Article 107(1)...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at 25 March 2021, the date of judgment; it is not being updated. For further information, see the timeline, commentary and related/similar cases. Case facts Outline Appeals to the Court of Justice stemming from the General Court’s judgments in Cases T-460/13, T-467/13, T-469/13, T-470/13, T-471/13 and T-472/13, which rejected applications to annul the Commission’s decision of 19 June 2013. That decision identified four infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and imposed fines totalling €146m on Lundbeck and certain generic manufacturers for ‘pay‑for‑delay’ arrangements postponing the market entry of generic citalopram in the EEA ( AT.39226). The appeals were lodged in: C‑586/16 Sun Pharmaceutical Industries and Ranbaxy ( UK) v Commission C‑588/16 Generics ( UK) v Commission C‑591/16 P Lundbeck v...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment dated 26 September 2018 and is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases Case facts Outline Philips brought an appeal against the General Court’s ruling that confirmed the Commission’s decision of 3 September 2014 ( Case AT.39226). That decision established an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and levied fines on Philips for its purported involvement in a cartel relating to the supply of smart card chips. Outcome On 26 September 2018, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, dismissing Philips’ appeal in its entirety. Parties Applicant: Koninklijke Philips NV ( Philips) Philips France SAS ( Philips France) Defendant: European Commission Philips, headquartered in the Netherlands, is a global technology company also engaged in the production and supply of smart card...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment of 17 September 2020 and is no longer maintained. For further details, see the timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline: Case C‑212/19, Compagnie des pêches de Saint‑ Malo — a national reference from France asking, among other points, whether the Commission’s decision of 14/07/2004 should be interpreted as stating that only the reductions in social security contributions are incompatible with the common market, on the basis that reductions in employees’ contributions do not benefit undertakings and therefore cannot fall within Article 107 TFEU. Latest developments On 17 September 2020, the Court of Justice gave its judgment, holding that the Commission’s decision of 17 July 2004 was invalid. It therefore found it unnecessary to address the two questions submitted by the Council of State. Parties Applicants: Ministre de l’...
CASE HUB (date of judgment—06/07/2017) See further: timeline commentary related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 6 June 2017; it is no longer maintained. Outline An appeal was lodged against the General Court’s ruling that affirmed the Commission’s re‑adopted decision of 27 June 2012 (which amended the Commission’s original decision of 24 January 2007). That decision found a breach of Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA Agreement and re‑imposed a €56.79m fine on Toshiba for its alleged role in a cartel concerning the supply of gas‑insulated switchgear (‘ Switchgear cartel’). On 6 July 2017, the Court of Justice rejected the appeal in its entirety, thereby upholding the General Court’s judgment and, in turn, the adjusted penalty imposed by the Commission under the re‑adopted decision......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 28 July 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline A request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU was submitted by the Hungarian Fővárosi Ítélőtábla to the Court of Justice, seeking clarification on whether restitution claims based on unjust enrichment are covered by the jurisdictional head in Regulation ( EC) No 44/2001 (the Brussels Regulation) relating to ‘tort, delict or quasi-delict’ (together, ‘non-contractual liability’). On 28 July 2016, the Court of Justice held that an action to recover ‘sums not due’ on grounds of unjust enrichment—here arising from the repayment of a fine levied in competition law proceedings—does not sit within the notion of ‘civil and commercial matters’ for the purposes of the Brussels Regulation, thereby...
This Practice Note sets out the civil mechanisms available to a local highway authority for addressing highway obstructions. It explains what amounts to an obstruction and summarises the authority’s statutory powers and duties in dealing with them. Criminal powers are excluded, being considered in Practice Note: Local authority powers to manage highway obstructions—criminal offences. The guidance is suitable for authorities outside London. Much will also be pertinent to London authorities, but certain provisions mentioned below—such as sections 130A–130D of the Highways Act 1980 ( Hi A 1980)—do not apply in London. London authorities should separately verify whether the powers described below are available to them. What is an obstruction? There is neither an exhaustive list nor a single statutory definition. A broad characterisation, drawn from Lord Evershed in Trevett v Lee, is something that, whether permanently or for a time, removes all or part of a...
ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note is no longer updated and provided solely for background information...
ARCHIVED This archived Practice Note is not maintained and is provided for background information purposes only. Furthermore, some links may no longer direct you to the provisions as they stood at the time this Practice Note’s guidance was published. For further information on previous and/or subsequent amendments to the CPR, see: CPR updates—overview and Procedure Rule Committee minutes—overview. Save where expressly indicated otherwise, the new CPR provisions come into force on Tuesday 1 October. To address these updates, we have already issued a summary of the changes to occur. See News Analyses: New CPR provisions for October 2013 and September and October 2013 CPR Practice Direction amendments. Costs—including revised Precedent H, fixed costs and provisional assessment of costs Revised Precedent H These reforms introduce a revised Precedent H ( CPR PD 3E). Note: this amendment came into force on 1 September 2013......
ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived. This Practice Note sets out the following: Schedule 3C of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 ( CJJA 1982) the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Regulations 2009, SI 2009/3131 (2009 Regulations, SI 2009/3131) the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 ( Interim Relief) Order 1997 (1977 Order) Schedule 3C to the CJJA 1982, together with later orders, implemented the Lugano Convention 1988 into UK law. As a result, amendments to these statutory instruments were necessary to align with provisions of the Lugano Convention 2007. These changes are set out in the 2009 Regulations, SI 2009/3131......
Civil fraud gives rise to a wide array of legal issues, often complex and multifaceted. Although every matter must be evaluated on its own merits and its specific factual and legal matrix, it is helpful to appreciate how the principal legal doctrines operate within their real-world context. Accordingly, this Practice Note highlights some of the more instructive decisions in civil fraud The decisions set out below are those from 1 January 2024 (for relevant cases from 13 December 2019, see Practice Note: Civil fraud—key and illustrative decisions ( December 2019– December 2023) [ Archived]). We do not seek to catalogue every ruling, but select those that yield particularly illuminating points. The entries include full links to the judgment and, where available, our News Analysis of the judgment For further guidance on bringing or resisting civil fraud claims, see: Civil...
This Practice Note examines when the court may deprive a party of assets (historically termed a ‘writ of sequestration’) as a remedy, sanction, or means of compulsion within contempt proceedings under CPR 81 (also known as ‘committal proceedings’). It does not cover sequestration used purely to enforce a judgment, order, or undertaking where no contempt proceedings are pursued—for guidance on that, see Practice Note: Writs of sequestration to enforce a judgment or order. Confiscation of assets—enforcement or contempt? Before 1 October 2020, all sequestration routes—both the ‘contempt’ variety and the ‘enforcement’ variety—sat within CPR 81. Following CPR amendments effective from 1 October 2020, CPR 81 was narrowed to contempt alone (see consultation: Proposed rule changes relating to contempt of court: redraft of CPR Part 81). Since that date, CPR 81 no longer uses the label ‘writ of...
Dealings— Setting the scene This Resource Note explains the meaning of dealings in the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers ( Code). It signposts key materials, commentary and guidance from the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers ( Panel), together with Lexis+® UK analysis and tools, to provide practical help with interpreting and applying that expression. Materials referenced in this Resource Note comprise: Practice Statements from the Panel Executive (the body responsible for day‑to‑day takeover oversight and regulation) ( Executive), offering informal guidance on the Executive’s usual approach to interpreting and applying the Code Panel Statements issued by the Panel ( P/ S) and Panel Instruments Public Consultation Papers ( PCP) and Response Statements ( RS) released by the Code Committee Annual Reports from the Panel addressing broader matters ( Annual Reports) relevant Lexis+® UK...
This Practice Note contains a chronological list of substantive changes to our Client care letter—law firms and Terms of business—law firms Precedents 2024 January — Terms of business—law firms: Clause 16.3.4(d) revised to incorporate the Legal Ombudsman’s updated postal address... 2023 November — Client care letter—law firms: Section 2 on climate risk amended and section 5 enhanced with prompts to consider recoverability of costs and liability for any shortfall when giving costs information; references to clients paying privately also refreshed, reflecting Law Society guidance on climate risk and SRA expectations around shortfalls where costs from an opponent are insufficient... November — Terms of business—law firms: Optional wording inserted in clause 5.4 and the drafting note broadened to exclude climate‑risk and climate‑related legal issues, in line with the Law Society’s climate risk guidance... April — Terms of...
Charitable appeals Appeals for charity are commonplace, yet it is often overlooked that when members of the public contribute to an appeal for a purpose that is charitable in law, a trust for that purpose arises automatically by operation of law. This remains true even where the written terms are remarkably brief, eg ‘ Save the Rembrandt for the Nation!’ or ‘ Little Snoring Village Hall Roof Appeal’, or where there is no written notice at all but only an oral statement such as ‘ A retiring collection will be made for Cancer Research’. The act of giving for a charitable purpose places those who receive the funds under a fiduciary obligation to apply them to that purpose, and to no other. Put another way, the recipients hold the money as charitable trustees. The nature of the purposes and appeals, the intended...
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
