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
This Practice Note outlines the principal elements of the EU’s prudential rulebook: the Capital Requirements Directive IV ( Directive 2013/36/ EU) ( CRD IV) and the Capital Requirements Regulation ( EU) 575/2013 ( EU CRR) (together, the CRD IV package or CRD IV), which implemented the Basel III global capital adequacy framework within the EU. For concise background on the Basel Accords, including Basel III, see Practice Note: Introduction to the Basel Framework— Basel III and Basel 3.1. Background to CRD IV and EU CRR Basel III is a worldwide suite of reforms establishing international standards for capital adequacy in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. The G20 Declaration of 2 April 2009 on ‘ Strengthening the Financial System’ urged consistent global action to enhance transparency, accountability and regulation by raising both the quantity and quality of capital held by banks. It also called for a...
This Practice Note outlines the European Commission’s July 2020 capital markets recovery package, created to mitigate the impact of the coronavirus ( COVID-19) pandemic. The initiative makes focused adjustments to key frameworks so that capital markets can more readily support European businesses as they emerge from the coronavirus crisis, including: EU Prospectus Regulation ( EU) 2017/1129 Markets in Financial Instruments Directive 2014/65/ EU ( EU Mi FID II) EU Securitisation Regulation ( EU) 2017/2402 ( OJ L 347 28.12.2017 p 35) Capital Requirements Regulation ( EU) 575/2013 ( EU CRR) Background to the capital markets recovery package On 24 July 2020, the European Commission adopted the capital markets recovery package as part of its broader coronavirus ( COVID-19) recovery agenda. In April 2020, it had already advanced a targeted banking package to ease lending to households and businesses across the EU (see...
The Court of Justice of the European Union Headquartered in Luxembourg, the Court of Justice of the European Union is made up of two courts: the Court of Justice and the General Court (the Civil Service Tribunal was integrated into the General Court in September 2016) overall......
This section records concluded Court of Justice appeals related to State aid ( Articles 107 to 109 TFEU) and other measures for the recovery of aid from 1 June 2015 onwards. For pending Court of Justice appeals and recovery actions (including rulings from the last 30 days), consult Court of Justice State aid appeals—ongoing cases tracker. For information on completed State aid appeals before the General Court, see General Court State aid appeals—closed cases tracker, and for closed national reference matters before the Court of Justice involving State aid, see Court of Justice State aid national references—closed cases tracker. Appeals from the General Court 2026 Case C‑457/23 P Deutsche Lufthansa v Ryanair and Others Appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T‑34/21, which upheld an action to annul the Commission decision in State aid Case SA.57153 approving the €6bn...
The table below collates and summarises all appeals presently pending before the Court of Justice concerning the EU’s Digital Markets Act ( DMA) (ie applications seeking annulment of Commission decisions). For appeals pending before......
2026 Case Judgment being appealed/issues Latest development The tables below list completed Court of Justice appeal matters relating to the EU Merger Regulation. For live Court of Justice appeals, see Court of Justice appeals—ongoing cases tracker. For information on concluded General Court appeals under the EU Merger Regulation, see General Court EUMR appeals—closed cases tracker. Joined Cases C-178/24 P Mainova v Commission and Case C-179/24 P enercity v Commission: challenges to the General Court’s judgment in Case T-53/21 rejecting actions to annul the Commission’s decision in E. ON/ Innogy ( M.8870). See Application ( C-178/24 P) and Application ( C-179/24 P). Judgment: 19/03/2026—appeals dismissed; Lodged: 01/03/2024. Joined Cases C-171/24 P EVH v Commission, C-172/24 P tadtwerke Leipzig v Commission, C-173/24 P TEAG v Commission, C-174/24 P Stadtwerke Hameln...
Sustainability and ESG—key principles Corporate sustainability—understood as performance against environmental, social and governance ( ESG) standards—has risen sharply in significance for investors, customers and employees. In turn, ESG criteria (often called metrics or factors) have expanded quickly, providing benchmarks by which the performance of, typically, corporate entities can be assessed... Common ESG metrics or factors Across the EU and worldwide, emerging mandatory and voluntary ESG reporting frameworks aim to capture quantifiable information that demonstrates whether companies are genuinely “sustainable” against each ESG measure relevant to their operations, and to ensure that data is as transparent as possible for investors and other stakeholders. For more on how ESG principles have developed and how they work in practice, see the following Practice Notes: ESG—new starter guide Sustainable business and environmental, social, governance ( ESG)—introduction for companies and advisers For a central resource on...
EU mandatory corporate sustainability reporting—core legal framework In recent years, corporate sustainability—meaning performance against ‘environmental social governance’ ( ESG) criteria—has grown in importance for investors, customers and employees. As a result, ESG criteria (also known as ESG metrics or factors) have developed rapidly, offering measures against which the performance of an entity, most often a company, can be assessed. The overarching purpose of the EU and global mandatory and voluntary ESG reporting frameworks is to compile quantifiable information that demonstrates whether corporate entities are genuinely ‘sustainable’ in relation to each ESG metric relevant to their operations, and to make that information as transparent as possible for investors and other stakeholders. In the EU, the central legislation governing compulsory sustainability reporting is Directive 2013/34/ EU on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of...
Introduction Directive ( EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on corporate sustainability due diligence, which also amends Directive ( EU) 2019/1937 and Regulation ( EU) 2023/2859 (abbreviated to CS3D or CSDDD), was published in the Official Journal on 5 July 2024. CS3D sits within the EU framework for sustainable corporate governance, alongside the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive ( Directive ( EU) 2022/2464, CSRD), and aligns with measures in the EU Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation ( Regulation ( EU) 2019/2088, EU SFDR) and the EU Taxonomy Regulation ( Regulation ( EU) 2020/852). This legislative suite originates from the 2019 European Green Deal policy roadmap and is intended to support the EU’s ambition to reach climate neutrality by 2050. CS3D recognises that ‘the behaviour of companies across all sectors of the economy is the key to success with...
STOP PRESS This Practice Note reflects the present legislative landscape; however, be aware that some aspects will be affected by the Digital Omnibus proposals issued on 19 November 2025 under the Commission’s ‘simplification’ programme. For further details, see Practice Note: EU Digital Omnibus—tracker. This Practice Note explores the law governing the use of cookies and related technologies in the EU, covering the following: Types of cookies and related technologies e Privacy Directive and cookies Responsibility for compliance Consent Clear and comprehensive information Exemptions EU GDPR and cookies Territorial scope Intranets Sanctions and enforcement Cookie audits Reform Resources and guidance Cookies are small data files placed on a user’s computer, phone or tablet. They enable an online service, such as a website, to recognise an individual user and retain particular information about them, such as login credentials, the contents of shopping baskets and site preferences. They are also widely used to direct advertising at a user based on their...
Addressing the triple planetary crisis (ie the interlinked challenges of climate change, pollution and biodiversity loss) requires producers and purchasers to make and use goods far more sustainably. EU product rules are progressively shaped and updated so that sustainability is embedded across every stage of the product lifecycle. This Practice Note sets out EU measures aimed at securing product sustainability, with a specific emphasis on provisions that enable and promote product ‘repairability’. Core instruments include Regulation ( EU) 2024/1781 (the EU Ecodesign Regulation), Directive 2011/83/ EU (the EU Consumer Rights Directive ( EU CRD)), as amended by Directive ( EU) 2024/825 (the EU Empowering Consumers Directive), and Directive ( EU) 2024/1799 (the EU Right to Repair Directive). Policy context—transition towards a fully circular economy in the EU On 11 March 2020, within the framework of the European Green Deal, the Commission adopted a Circular Economy Action Plan. This...
This Practice Note summarises Directive ( EU) 2020/1828 (the EU Representative Actions Directive or EU Collective Redress Directive), which provides a mechanism across all EU Member States to safeguard the collective interests of consumers. The legislation is designed to better enable collective proceedings for European consumers and obliges Member States to ensure at least one procedural route that permits qualified entities to bring representative actions not only for injunctive measures but also for effective remedies on consumers’ behalf. This covers claims for compensation for infringements of consumer rights in sectors including financial services, travel and tourism, energy, health, telecommunications and data protection, as permitted under EU or national law. The Directive took effect on 24 December 2020; Member States were required to transpose it by 25 December 2022, and the measures have applied from 25 June 2023. It repealed Directive 2009/22/ EC, the EU...
This Practice Note examines the EU conflict minerals framework which, through third-party audits and reporting on supply chain due diligence, aims to curb the funding of armed conflict via mineral trading. Background Responsible sourcing has become a key facet of supply chain management. Practitioners must anticipate and answer the expectations of non-governmental organisations ( NGOs), customers, shareholders and regulators that companies understand the origin of every material and component in their products, and tackle the human rights impacts of their operations and supply chains. Procuring high-value minerals from conflict-affected and high-risk regions remains among the toughest supply chain issues. To tackle this, in 2010 the US Congress inserted a provision into the Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ( Dodd- Frank Act) directing the Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC) to craft a rule to sever links between trade in certain minerals from central Africa and...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 12 December 2016 and is no longer being maintained. See further: timeline commentary related/relevant cases Case facts The General Court had annulled two Commission decisions: (1) the decision of 5 March 2008 finding that the Greek state’s retention of preferential rights benefiting Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou AE ( DEI) over the exploration and exploitation of lignite deposits was incompatible with Article 86(1) EC, read together with Article 82 EC; and (2) the decision of 4 August 2009 prescribing targeted measures to address the anticompetitive effects identified in the 5 March 2008 decision ( Case COMP/ B-1/38.700— Greek Lignite). Outline Following the Court of Justice’s judgments in Cases C-553/12 P Commission v DEI and C-554/12 P Commission v DEI, which set aside the General Court’s rulings annulling those Commission decisions, the matter was sent back to the...
CASE HUB (date of judgment—27/04/2017) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVED — this archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision of 27 April 2017; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeal lodged against the General Court’s ruling partially setting aside the Commission’s decision in relation to a penalty on Akzo (reduced to €40.194m under that ruling) for Akzo group companies’ alleged involvement in EEA‑wide cartels on the market for tin and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers (‘ Heat stabilisers cartel’). In particular, Akzo challenges the General Court’s judgment to the extent it finds that fines initially imposed on two Akzo subsidiaries for their participation in the infringements can still be ascribed to Akzo, even though the General Court annulled the subsidiaries’ penalties. On 27 April 2017, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal in full and thereby affirmed the General Court’s ruling (and the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the state of play as at the date of the re‑adopted decision of 16 June 2017; it is no longer updated. For further detail, see the timeline and commentary. NOTE— Printeos and Tompla filed an appeal against the original decision in Case T‑95/15; that appeal culminated in the re‑adopted decision of 16/06/2017. Case facts ARCHIVE 16/06/2017 Outline European Commission investigation under Article 101 TFEU into a cartel on the paper envelopes market ( AT.39780). Latest development On 16 June 2017, following the General Court’s annulment of the first decision, the Commission re‑adopted a decision against Printeos and Tompla. A €4.729m fine was re‑imposed, unchanged from the initial amount. The re‑adoption remedies the procedural flaw identified by the General Court. Parties Bong, based in Sweden GPV, based in France Hameline, based in France Mayer‑ Kuvert, based in Germany ...
CASE HUB (date of judgment—24/06/2015) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases ARCHIVED — this archived case hub captures the position as at the decision date of 24 June 2015; it is not being updated Case facts Outline Del Monte lodged appeals against the General Court’s ruling which, in essence, confirmed the Commission’s decision of 15 October 2008 finding an infringement and levying a €14.7m fine on Del Monte, jointly and severally with Weichert, for allegedly taking part in a cartel concerning supplies of fresh bananas to the northern European region (‘ Bananas cartel’). The General Court nonetheless cut Del Monte’s individual penalty owing to purported errors in the fine calculation and for affording too little credit to Weichert’s cooperation during the administrative phase. That adjustment to Del Monte/ Weichert’s individual fine formed the basis of the Commission’s own appeal to the Court of Justice. On 24 June 2015, the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 5 December 2013; it is no longer being maintained. Case facts Outline Appeals were lodged by the European Commission and four appellants against the General Court’s judgments which, broadly and in substance, upheld the Commission’s decision of 3 May 2006 imposing fines on the parties (and others) for involvement in a cartel relating to the supply of hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate—while partially annulling that decision in respect of Solvay and thereby reducing the fine imposed on it (prompting a cross-appeal by the Commission). The Commission also brought a separate appeal concerning the General Court’s judgment that annulled the decision (and the fine) as regards Edison’s alleged role in the infringement. The case turns chiefly on the attribution of a subsidiary’s anti-competitive conduct to its parent company, including analysis of the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 4 July 2013 and is no longer maintained. For further details, see: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline The European Commission appealed against the General Court’s judgment which, in so far as it related to Aalberts Industries NV and two of its subsidiaries, annulled the Commission’s decision and the fines for participation in a cartel affecting the European market for copper and copper‑alloy fittings from 1998 to 2004. Aalberts and its two subsidiaries filed a cross‑appeal in the event the Court of Justice were to uphold the Commission’s appeal. The case turns chiefly on the concept of a ‘ Single continuous infringement’ and, in particular, the evidential standard the Commission must satisfy to establish such...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeals lodged before the General Court in Cases T-873/16 and T-358/18 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision of 31 March 2020; it is no longer updated. See also timetable, commentary and related cases. Note—a third party challenged the Commission’s acceptance of commitments from Paramount; this was rejected in Case T-873/16 Groupe Canal + v Commission. Case facts Outline European Commission investigation under Article 101 TFEU into restrictive arrangements in the pay‑ TV services sector concerning studios’ licensing of film content to pay‑ TV broadcasters (case AT.40023). Latest development On 31 March 2021, the Commission stated it had withdrawn its 7 March 2019 decision that had made commitments binding on Disney, NBCUniversal, Sony Pictures, Warner Bros and Sky. The withdrawal followed the Court of Justice annulling the Commission’s earlier 26 July 2016 decision imposing comparable commitments on Paramount Pictures (see Case...
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
