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 NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case- C- 885/19 P ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 24 September 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: Case facts Outline The action sought to annul the Commission’s decision of 21 October 2015, which held that Luxembourg’s selective tax treatment of Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe amounted to unlawful State aid ( Case SA.38375). Latest developments On 24 September 2019, the General Court delivered its judgment, confirming, among other points, that the Commission rightly determined the Luxembourg ruling reduced Fiat’s tax burden and conferred a selective advantage over other undertakings. The Court also found the Commission had shown a distortion of competition, and that the measure neither violated legal certainty nor infringed rights of...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the decision date of 13 September 2013 and is no longer updated. See further: timeline commentary related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVE—13/09/2013 Outline Appeals were brought before the General Court seeking annulment, partial annulment and/or a cut in the level of the individual penalties imposed arising from the Commission’s decision of 1 October 2008. That decision found breaches of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and levied a €128.163m fine on Total France, jointly and severally with Total SA, for alleged participation in a price-fixing and market/customer allocation cartel involving paraffin waxes across the European Economic Area ( EEA) and slack wax in Germany between 1992 and 2005 (‘ Candle waxes cartel’). On 13 September 2013, the General Court rejected Total’s case in full but granted a small decrease to Total...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C-331/20 and C-343/20 ARCHIVED This archived hub records the position as at the judgments of 13 May 2020 and is no longer maintained. For additional details, see the timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline An application seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 July 2016 on compensation granted to Sardinian airports for public service obligations ( Case SA.33983). Outcome On 13 May 2020, the General Court delivered its judgment dismissing the appeals. It found, inter alia, that the Commission: properly concluded that the airlines were beneficiaries of the aid scheme, as an advantage funded through State resources was conferred via payments attributable to the Region of Sardinia; rightly defined the compensation mechanism as an aid scheme and determined that it was liable to distort competition and to affect trade between Member States; and had not...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 27 September 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal concerning the Commission’s decision in PC video games (geo-blocking) ( AT.40413, AT.40414, AT.40420, AT.40422, AT.40424), which levied a €1.62m fine on Valve, among other parties, for concluding bilateral arrangements with five video game publishers. These arrangements curtailed parallel trade across EU Member States by stopping consumers from purchasing lower-priced games available outside the buyer’s location or country of residence. Latest development On 27 September 2023, the General Court delivered its judgment, rejecting Valve’s appeal in full......
CASE HUB ( NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 539/18) ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 26 September 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Case T-621/16, České dráhy v Commission ( Twins) — an appeal before the General Court challenging the European Commission’s decision to order inspections under Article 20 of Regulation 1/2003, connected to the ongoing so-called Twins investigation ( AT.40401). Latest development On 20 June 2018, the General Court delivered its judgment, by which it dismissed an action brought for annulment of the Commission’s decision that authorised dawn raids in question. Parties Applicant: České dráhy ( CD), the principal railway operator in the Czech Republic. Defendant: the European...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 15 October 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline Case facts Outline An application for annulment before the General Court concerning the European Commission’s decision of 19 February 2018, which concluded that remuneration paid by the Czech Republic to Česká pošta for carrying out postal services under a USO during 2013–2017 did not amount to unlawful State aid ( SA.45281 and SA.44859). Latest developments On 15 October 2020, the General Court delivered its judgment and rejected the action in full. Parties Applicants: Mediaservis s. r. o (now První novinová společnost a.s) (hereafter, Mediaservis) Defendant: European Commission (hereafter, the Commission) Background Background to the dispute On 22 February 2013, the Czech Telecommunications Regulatory Authority appointed Česká pošta s.p. (a company fully owned by the Czech Republic) (hereafter, Česká pošta) as the universal service postal...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 12 December 2018; it is no longer maintained. NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 132/19 P See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Challenge before the General Court against the European Commission’s acceptance of commitments offered by Paramount Pictures in the investigation into cross-border access to pay- TV ( Case AT.40023). Latest development On 12 December 2018, the General Court delivered its ruling, rejecting the application for annulment and thus affirming the Commission’s decision to accept Paramount’s commitments. The Court confirmed that an Article 9 commitments decision must present the Commission’s competition concerns, explain how the accepted commitments resolve them, and that no less extensive proposals would likewise address those concerns. Parties Applicant: Groupe Canal + ( Canal +) is a French film and...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 10 December 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outlin e An appeal was brought before the General Court seeking to set aside, or at least lessen, the fine arising from the Commission’s decision of 8 December 2010, which found a breach of Article 101 TFEU and levied a €5m penalty on the Ordre national des pharmaciens ( ONP) and its governing organs. The alleged conduct concerned the imposition of minimum prices for clinical laboratory testing in France and the obstruction of the formation of laboratory groups on the French market between October 2003 and September 2007. On 10 December 2014, the General Court upheld the Commission’s findings but ordered a slight reduction of the fine, cutting it from €5m to...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment of 26 June 2014 and it is no longer being maintained at present. Case facts ARCHIVE—26/06/2014 Outline An appeal to the General Court seeks the annulment of the decision of the Commission’s accounting officer dated 8 October 2010 concerning payment by instalments of the fine imposed upon the applicants by the Commission decision of 20 July 2010, adopted within a 'hybrid' settlement procedure, in relation to a cartel spanning over three decades in the European animal feed phosphates market (' Animal feed phosphates cartel'). The challenge specifically targets the condition requiring Quimitécnica to furnish a bank guarantee issued by a bank holding a long‑term ' AA' credit rating from one of three named credit rating agencies. The case turns chiefly on inability to pay and the arrangements for the payment of that...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment of 26 November 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline An appeal was brought before the General Court seeking annulment, or a reduction, of the fine imposed by the Commission’s decision of 28 March 2012, which found an infringement of Article 23 of Regulation 1/2003 and imposed a €2.5m penalty on Czech energy company Energetický and its business advisory unit, EP advisers, for allegedly obstructing an unannounced Commission inspection. The applicants alleged irregularities during the inspection: the Commission did not ensure that the relevant individuals were properly informed of their obligations and of the consequences of non‑compliance. They also claimed a breach of the ‘presumption of innocence’, asserting the case was handled with inadequate care and...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 11 July 2014; it is no longer updated. See also: timeline, commentary and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Applications were brought before the General Court seeking annulment, partial annulment and/or reductions in the amounts of certain individual fines arising from the Commission’s decision of 1 October 2008. That decision found infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and imposed aggregate penalties of €676m on nine corporate groups for their alleged involvement in a price‑fixing and market/customer sharing cartel concerning the supply of paraffin waxes within the European Economic Area ( EEA) and slack wax in Germany between 1992 and 2005 (‘ Candle waxes cartel’). On 11 July 2014, the General Court partially upheld each appeal, lowering every fine imposed and annulling the decision in so far as it...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 13 July 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and relevant/similar cases. Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court against the European Commission decision establishing an infringement and imposing fines on Stührk Delikatessen Import for its alleged role in a price-fixing cartel relating to the supply of North Sea shrimps ( AT.39633). Outcome On 13 July 2018, the General Court delivered its judgment, partially annulling the Commission’s decision in so far as it imposed a fine on Stührk Delikatessen Import; the rest of the action was dismissed, with the General Court maintaining the remainder of the decision. In particular, the General Court found that the Commission failed to provide adequate reasons for departing from the general methodology set out in the Fining Guidelines and for awarding different...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgments of 5 October 2020; it is no longer updated. For more detail, see the timeline. NOTE Appeals were brought before the Court of Justice in Cases C-682/20 P, C-690/20 and C-682/20. Case facts Outline: Applications to the General Court sought to annul the Commission’s decisions in AT.40466 and AT.40467 authorising dawn raids connected to suspected information exchanges between companies operating in the supply of hygiene and cleaning products. Outcome On 5 October 2020, the General Court delivered three judgments. It partially annulled aspects of the Commission’s 2017 inspection decisions concerning one of the alleged infringements. The Court held that the Commission had not established sufficiently compelling evidence to suspect exchanges of information relating to the supermarket chains’ prospective commercial strategies. Accordingly, this element of the Commission’s 2017 inspection decisions was set aside......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment of 23 January 2014; it is no longer maintained Case facts Outline Actions before the General Court sought annulment or a reduction of fines arising from the Commission’s decision of 22 July 2009, which held that Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA were infringed and imposed total penalties of €61.1m on nine companies for alleged involvement in a calcium carbide and magnesium cartel from 2004 to 2007. SKW Stahl- Metallurige received a penalty for its direct role in the cartel. Evonik Degussa and Gigaset were deemed liable, and fined, on the basis of parental liability: Evonik Degussa had briefly been SKW Stahl- Metallurige’s parent after the cartel began, before selling to Gigaset in 2004; Gigaset later sold SKW Stahl- Metallurige after the cartel activity had...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub sets out the position as at the date of the judgment of 20 December 2023; it is no longer being maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeals to the General Court against the European Commission’s decision identifying infringements and imposing penalties on three banks that declined to settle in respect of their involvement in a cartel in the Euro interest rate derivatives ( EIRD) market ( Case AT.39914). Latest developments On 20 December 2023, the General Court delivered its judgments, in which it partly upheld the appeals. Parties Applicants: JP Morgan Chase Crédit Agricole Defendant: European Commission Background Commission’s 2013 decision On 19 October 2011, the Commission conducted dawn raids concerning a suspected cartel in the EIRD market. On 4 December 2013, the Commission announced that four banks ( Barclays, Deutsche Bank, Société Générale and RBS) had settled with the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment dated 16 May 2018 and is no longer maintained. See the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline An appeal was brought before the General Court challenging the European Commission’s refusal to grant a partial waiver of commitments accepted in Case M.3770 Lufthansa/ Swiss. Latest development On 16 May 2018, the General Court delivered its judgment and partially annulled the Commission’s decision rejecting the request for a partial waiver of commitments in Case M.3770 Lufthansa/ Swiss. The Court found the Commission had not assessed all relevant material, including the termination of a joint venture agreement, and had failed to consider a shift in its policy regarding the evaluation of codeshare agreements. Consequently, it annulled the decision insofar as it rejected the waiver for the Zurich– Stockholm route, where contractual...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 16 September 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/similar cases Case facts ( ARCHIVE—16/09/2013) Outline Applications were lodged before the General Court seeking annulment and/or reductions of fines stemming from the Commission’s decision of 23 June 2010, which found infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and imposed total penalties of €622m on bathroom equipment manufacturers for their alleged involvement in a single, continuous infringement in the bathroom fixtures and fittings sector (‘ Bathroom fittings and fixtures cartel’). On 16 September 2013 the General Court rejected in full the actions of the following: Masco Mamoli Zucchetti Rubinetteria Cisal Laufen Dornbracht Hansa Metallwerke In the remaining cases, the Court partially annulled the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 26 September 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline On 26 September 2018, the General Court delivered its ruling in Case T‑574/14 – EAEPC v Commission, brought to annul a Commission decision in Case COMP/ AT.36957 ( Glaxo Wellcome). By that decision, the Commission rejected an EAEPC complaint, thereby declining to pursue any further, additional inquiries into an alleged breach of Article 101 TFEU by Glaxo Wellcome SA (now Glaxo Smith Kline SA). The General Court dismissed the action. Outcome On 26 September 2018, the General Court gave judgment, rejecting the application for annulment and dismissing the action in full. Parties Applicant: the European Association of Euro‑ Pharmaceutical Companies ( EAEPC). EAEPC is a European association representing the interests of independent companies...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment of 15 July 2015 and is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. NOTE Appeal lodged by Akzo Nobel at the Court of Justice in Case C-516/15 Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission ( Heat stabilisers cartel). Case facts Outline Appeals to the General Court sought annulment and/or a reduction of the fines arising from the Commission’s decision of 11 November 2009, as later amended. That decision found infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA and imposed penalties of €168.4m and €3.803m on Akzo Group and GEA Group respectively, linked to alleged participation in EEA-wide cartels on the market for tin and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers (‘ Heat stabilisers cartel’). On 15 July 2015, the General Court partially annulled the infringement decision insofar as it concerned the fines imposed on Akzo and...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 15 January 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts Ziegler brought an action for damages before the General Court, seeking compensation for loss the applicants claim to have suffered following an infringement decision and fine imposed on Ziegler for involvement in a cartel supplying international removal services in Belgium. Outline The applicants contend that the European Union bears partial responsibility for the confirmed infringement, notably because Commission officials requested cover quotations for their own international removals and relocations. Parties Applicants: Ziegler SA ( Ziegler) Ziegler Relocation SA ( Ziegler Relocation) Defendant: European Commission Ziegler Relocation is a subsidiary of Ziegler. Since 2003, Ziegler Relocation has been the Ziegler group entity responsible for carrying out removal services. It has performed...
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
