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 judgment of 26 November 2013; it is no longer maintained See further, timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Appeals were lodged against the General Court’s judgments rejecting the appellants’ actions seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 30 November 2005, which levied fines on Gascogne Sack Deutschland Gmb H, Groupe Gascogne SA and Kendrion NV for their involvement in a cartel concerning the supply of industrial plastic bags within the EEA (‘ Industrial bags cartel’). On 26 November 2013, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeals in full. The matter concerns the attribution to a parent company of a subsidiary’s unlawful behaviour, including scenarios where the directly implicated subsidiary was acquired and then divested within a short timeframe. The case also addresses the requirement that...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This preserved case hub records the status as at the judgment dated 27 February 2014; it is no longer being maintained now...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment of 7 February 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline A national reference by the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky ( Slovakia) asked the Court of Justice, under Article 267 TFEU, for a preliminary ruling on whether, in assessing Articles 101(1) and 101(3) TFEU, it is material that a competitor excluded by others’ collusive conduct is, nonetheless, operating unlawfully on the relevant market. On 7 February 2013, the Court of Justice held, amongst other points, that the alleged illegality of Akcenta’s activities in Slovakia is irrelevant to deciding whether the Article 101(1) TFEU prohibition is engaged. Parties Slovenská sporiteľňa a.s. ( Slovenská sporiteľňa) Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky ( Slovakian Competition Authority) Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky ( Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic—the referring...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 25 November 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Case C‑823/18, Commission v GEA Group, concerns an appeal challenging the General Court’s ruling in Case T‑640/16, which had annulled the Commission’s revised decision relating to the heat stabilisers cartel ( AT.38589). Latest development On 25 November 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment: it upheld the appeal, quashed the General Court’s judgment and remitted the matter to the General Court. Parties Appellant: European Commission (the Commission) Defendant: GEA Group AG ( GEA), a German provider of process technology serving the food sector and numerous other industries Market(s) Heat stabilisers, in solid or liquid form, are incorporated into polyvinyl chloride ( PVC) products to enhance heat resistance. They also boost the flexibility, stiffness and clarity of finished PVC goods, and...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the date of the judgment on 15 June 2013; it is no longer being maintained...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment dated 30 April 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further the timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C‑627/18 Nelson Antunes de Cunha v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP — a national reference from Portugal seeking clarification on, amongst other matters, whether the limitation period for exercising the power to recover State aid applies (i) solely to relations between the EU and the Member State to which the decision to recover aid is addressed, or (ii) whether it also governs relations between that Member State and the opponent, as the beneficiary of the aid considered incompatible with the Single Market. Latest developments On 30 April 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, ruling that national limitation periods for the recovery of unlawful State aid cannot be shorter than those under EU...
ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment of 21 October 2020 and is no longer updated. For more, see the timeline. Case facts Outline Case C-556/19 Eco TLC—a reference from France—asked whether, amongst other points, a scheme under which a private, non-profit eco-entity, approved by the public authorities, takes contributions from those placing a defined product category on the market and contracting with it, in return for organising the treatment of waste from those products on their behalf, and then redistributes to sorting and recovery operators subsidies whose levels are fixed in the approval in line with environmental and social objectives, should be considered unlawful State aid. Latest developments On 22 October 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, holding that a French textile waste recovery scheme did not constitute State...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the situation as at the judgment dated 26 March 2020; it is no longer updated or maintained and will not receive further changes. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court’s ruling in Case T- 423/14, which dismissed an application seeking annulment of the Commission decision ( SA.34572) that determined numerous guarantees afforded to Larko amounted to unlawful State aid. Latest developments On 26 March 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, in which it partially allowed the appeal. Parties Appellant: Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE ( Larko) Respondent: European Commission (the Commission) Background Background Larko is a major enterprise focused on the extraction and processing of laterite ore, the extraction of lignite, and the production of ferronickel and its by-products......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment of 18 April 2024; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline A national reference from the Czech Republic seeking guidance on applying Directive 2014/104 (the Damages Directive) in a damages action issued against Google LLC for an alleged infringement of Article 102 TFEU. Latest developments On 18 April 2024, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, finding that the former Czech limitation rules conflict with EU law. Those rules render the exercise of the right to obtain compensation for harm arising from a competition law infringement practically impossible or excessively difficult. Parties Applicant: Heureka Group a.s. ( Heureka) Defendant: Google LLC ( Google) Markets Price comparison services. Background to reference Background Heureka operates in the Czech Republic in the sale price comparison services market. It brought a claim before the Czech courts seeking damages from Google LLC...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 23 October 2014 and is not being updated. See further: timeline commentary related/relevant cases Case facts Outline National reference from the Latvian Augstākās Tiesas Senāts to the Court of Justice, seeking a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU to clarify several issues concerning the application of Regulation ( EC) No 44/2001 (the Brussels Regulation) to a claim for competition damages — in particular, matters arising from a challenge, in Latvia, to the enforcement of interim measures ordered in Lithuania. On 23 October 2014, the Court of Justice held that a damages action for breach of competition law constitutes a ‘civil and commercial matter’ and thus falls within the ambit of the Brussels Regulation. The Brussels Regulation lays down the core parameters for identifying...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 22 October 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Case C‑702/19, Silver Plastics and Johannes Reifenhäuser v Commission — an appeal brought before the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgment in Case T‑582/15, which had dismissed an action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision concerning a cartel in retail food packaging trays ( AT.39563). Latest development On 22 October 2020, the Court of Justice handed down its ruling, rejecting the appeal in its entirety. Parties Appellant: Silver Plastics Gmbh and Johannes Refifenhäuser Holding Gmb H & Co. KG (together, Silver Plastics) Defendant: European Commission (the Commission) Market(s) Retail food packaging trays. Rigid retail trays are manufactured from polystyrene foam or polypropylene. They are used to package food sold in shops and...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 14 November 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related/similar cases. Case facts Case C-599/18 P, Silec Cable and General Cable v Commission—an appeal brought before the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgment in Case T-438/14, which dismissed an action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision. That decision found a breach of Article 101 TFEU and imposed penalties on Silec Cable for involvement in a cartel on the high-voltage power cables market ( AT.39610). Latest development On 14 November 2019, the Court of Justice handed down its ruling, rejecting the appeal in full. Parties Appellants: Silec Cable SAS and General Cable Corp. (together, Silec). Silec operates in the manufacture and supply of underground and submarine power...
CASE HUB (date of judgment—09/03/2017) See further: timeline and related/similar cases Case facts ARCHIVED — this archived case hub captures the position as at the decision dated 9 September 2017; it is no longer maintained. Outline An appeal was lodged against the General Court’s ruling that upheld the Commission’s decision of 5 December 2012, which found breaches of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53(1) EEA and levied aggregate fines of €150.8m on Samsung group companies for alleged involvement in two separate cathode ray tube cartels (the ‘ TV and computer monitor tubes cartels’). On 9 March 2017, the Court of Justice rejected the appeal in full, thereby confirming the penalties imposed jointly and severally on Samsung SDI and Samsung SDI Malaysia. The case remains significant as it constitutes one of the largest overall fines ever imposed for an EU competition law infringement, even after the General Court reduced...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment on 30 May 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Quinn Barlo appealed against the General Court’s judgment that dismissed its action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 31 May 2006, which had imposed a fine on Quinn Barlo for its purported role in a worldwide cartel concerning the supply of acrylic glass (the ‘ Acrylic glass cartel’). On 30 May 2013, the Court of Justice rejected the appeal in full. Among other matters, the case concerns the methodology for calculating fines and the Court’s exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction to modify or impose penalties, even where this may depart from the Commission’s fining...
ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the situation as at the judgment of 17 November 2022 and is no longer being updated... CASE HUB See further, timeline... Case facts Outline An appeal was brought against the General Court’s judgment of 7 July 2021, which rejected an action to annul the Commission’s decision of 9 July 2019 concerning alleged unlawful State aid to the fossil fuel sector through reduced property tax ( SA.44671)... Latest developments On 17 November 2022, the Court of Justice delivered its ruling, dismissing the appeal. It concluded that: (i) the General Court did not err in finding no serious difficulties that would oblige the Commission to open the formal investigation procedure; and (ii) there was no indication that the General Court misrepresented the evidence placed before it... Parties Appellants: Irish Wind Farmers’ Association Carrons Windfarm Ltd ( Carrons Windfarm) Foyle Windfarm Ltd ( Foyle...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment date of 8 May 2013; it is no longer updated. For more, see: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Eni Sp A appealed the General Court’s ruling, which partially upheld the Commission’s decision finding an infringement and imposing a €272.25m fine, for which Eni and its subsidiary Versalis Sp A were held jointly and severally liable, stemming from the latter’s alleged involvement in an EU‑wide cartel for the supply of butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene‑butadiene rubber (hereafter BR and ESBR, collectively ‘synthetic rubber’) from 20 May 1996 to 28 November 2002. While the infringement finding stood, the General Court reduced the penalty to €181.5m, concluding the Commission had not substantiated the 50% increase for recidivism. The European Commission filed a cross‑appeal seeking to overturn the General Court’s...
ARCHIVED — this hub captures the position as at the judgment dated 30 January 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal to the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgments in Cases T‑325/16 and T‑621/16, which sought annulment of two Commission decisions ordering dawn raids—the first concerning Case AT.40156— Falcon and the second concerning Case AT.40401— Twins. Latest development On 30 January 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment and rejected the appeals in full. Parties Appellant: České dráhy ( CD), the main railway operator in the Czech Republic. Defendant: European Commission Background AT.40156— Falcon The Commission’s ongoing inquiry in Falcon ( AT.40156) concerns alleged exclusionary abuses under Article 102 TFEU on the rail route linking Prague and Ostrava. In 2011 and 2012, two new rail operators, Regio Jet and LEO Express, began passenger services on the Prague– Ostrava line (...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 2 March 2021 and is no longer being maintained. See further: timeline Case facts Outline Outline Appeal against the General Court judgment in Case T- 98/16, which allowed Italy’s action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 23 December 2015. That decision had concluded that funding provided to Bancas Tercas through the Italian mandatory deposit guarantee scheme infringed EU State aid rules. Latest developments On 2 March 2021, the Court of Justice delivered its ruling and rejected the appeal in full. The Court confirmed that the General Court was right to find that measures taken by a consortium of Italian banks to assist one of its members did not amount to State aid, as they were not attributable to the Italian State......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 14 March 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts A national reference was made by the Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága ( Hungary) to the Court of Justice under Article 267 TFEU, asking whether framework arrangements between insurance companies and vehicle repairers—or between insurers and a car repairers’ association, where the hourly repair rate depends on the number or proportion of policies sold—amount to restrictions of competition ‘by object’ within Article 101(1) TFEU. Outline On 13 March 2013, the Court of Justice held that pricing agreements for the repair of insured vehicles concluded between insurers and repair shops have an anti-competitive object and are therefore prohibited, as they are, ‘by their very nature’, harmful to the proper functioning of normal...
CASE HUB See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeals challenge the General Court’s judgment in Case T-616/18, which dismissed an attempt to set aside the Commission’s decision to accept binding commitments proposed by Gazprom under Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003. Those commitments were intended to resolve competition concerns that Gazprom had abused its dominant position in Central and Eastern European gas markets. Outcome On 6 June 2024, Advocate General Rantos delivered his opinion advising the Court of Justice to reject the appeal. He found, among other points, that the General Court did not err in declining to treat the Commission’s application of the principle of energy solidarity as equivalent to imposing positive obligations on the Commission that exceeded the scope of the complaints brought against Gazprom. Parties Applicant: Orlen S. A., formerly Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen S. A., formerly Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S. A. ( Orlen) ...
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
