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 explains the SRA Accounts Rules requirements on withdrawing funds from client accounts. It also mirrors supporting SRA guidance: Helping you keep accurate client accounting records Planning for and completing an accountant’s report Taking money for your firm’s costs See also Precedents: Accounts manual for accounts or finance team—law firms and Accounts manual for staff—law firms, both of which contain a section on client account withdrawals. These are complemented by appendices: Procedure for client account withdrawals and Register of approved signatories. The current Accounts Rules took effect on 25 November 2019. They are brief but supported by extensive SRA guidance. The Rules use plain language, yet contain subjective terms such as ‘promptly’, ‘fair’ and ‘appropriate’, and the SRA recognises this calls for an exercise of judgment. Operating a client account and handling client money Rules 2 to 8 set out what is...
Accounting treatment of joint arrangements, including joint ventures and associates This Practice Note sets out how to account for joint arrangements, encompassing joint ventures and associates. Although the relevant standards may appear straightforward, applying them in real life can be challenging, so what seems simple at first glance often proves complex in practice. IFRS and FRS 102 largely align, whereas old UK GAAP diverged markedly in several respects. Accordingly, this Practice Note touches on old UK GAAP only incidentally, because FRS 102 applies to accounting periods commencing on or after 1 January 2015 and will govern the overwhelming majority of present and forthcoming transactions that involve joint ventures and associates. Given the close similarity between FRS 102 and IFRS, we spotlight the principal differences instead of analysing each framework in depth. In practice, the main difficulties arise when determining the substance of an...
ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. A major overhaul of the UK listing regime took effect on 29 July 2024, removing the premium and standard listing segments and creating a single category for equity shares in commercial companies. This commercial companies category is strongly disclosure‑based and sits alongside other listing categories, such as: Shell companies Secondary listing Closed ended investment fund The UK Listing Rules sourcebook was brought in to implement these reforms, and the previous Listing Rules sourcebook has been revoked. For more detail, see Practice Note: Reform of the UK listing regime—fundamentals. That fundamentals note sets out the regime as it applied before 29 July 2024 and is retained for reference. This document explains class 1 transactions carried out by companies that formerly held a premium listing under the pre‑29 July 2024 regime. The prior Listing Rules have now...
This Practice Note outlines the provisions of the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme (commonly known as Clare’s Law). It explains the guidance governing the scheme. It also summarises the powers available to the police and the court under the Crime and Security Act 2010 regarding domestic violence protection notices and domestic violence protection orders, and the way these are influenced by the domestic abuse protection notices and domestic abuse protection orders created by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 ( DAA 2021). Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme The Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme ( DVDS), often referred to as Clare’s Law, was implemented across all 43 police forces in England and Wales on 8 March 2014. The DVDS established processes enabling the police to share information about an individual’s previous violent or abusive offending, including emotional abuse, controlling or coercive behaviour, or economic abuse, where doing so may help...
ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. It offers a synopsis of selected key and/or illustrative rulings relevant to claims involving directors. Its aim is to showcase the diverse spectrum of actions and issues that may arise in proceedings concerning directors, with particular emphasis on decisions from July 2018 to December 2025; accordingly, not every significant case relating to claims against directors is included below. For further guidance on the principal heads of claim potentially relevant to disputes involving directors, as well as the practical points it is sensible to address at the outset of any claim against a director, see Practice Note: Claims against directors—key considerations for dispute resolution practitioners. Case details and analysis Supreme Court Mitchell (joint liquidators of MBI International & Partners Inc (in liquidation)) v Al Jaber; Mitchell (joint...
This Practice Note sets out practical guidance for exporters on how to claim preference under the rules of origin when trading under the Australia and United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement ( Aus‑ UK FTA). Introduction For exports of goods to access the preferential tariff treatment offered by the Aus‑ UK FTA, the shipped product must meet the rules of origin requirements laid down in the Aus‑ UK FTA, as set out in that agreement. For guidance on the preferential treatment available to goods under the Aus‑ UK FTA, see Practice Note: Trade in goods under the Aus‑ UK FTA. For guidance on the rules of origin requirements that goods must satisfy to obtain the preferential treatment, see Practice Note: Rules of origin of the Aus‑ UK FTA. Claiming preferential treatment for goods Both parties must permit an importer to lodge a claim for...
This Practice Note offers hands-on guidance for exporters on securing preference under the rules of origin when trading textile products within the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans- Pacific Partnership ( CPTPP)... Introduction To access the preferential tariff rates available under the CPTPP, exported goods must satisfy the agreement’s rules of origin requirements. For an overview of the preferential treatment available to goods under the CPTPP, see Practice Note: UK’s trade in goods under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans- Pacific Partnership. For detailed help on the rules of origin that products must meet to qualify for those preferences, see Practice Note: Rules of origin under the CPTPP. This Practice Note focuses on claiming preferential tariff treatment specifically for textile products under the CPTPP. For advice on claiming preferences for all other categories of goods under the CPTPP, see Practice Note: How to claim...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment of 21 December 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline A Belgian preliminary reference seeking clarification on how Article 101 TFEU applies to specific football rules. Latest developments On 21 December 2023, the Court of Justice delivered its ruling and indicated that UEFA and the Belgian FA’s ‘home grown players’ rules could breach EU competition law. Parties Applicants: UL. SA Royal Antwerp Football Club Defendant: Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL Market Football Background to reference Background UL, a footballer born in 1986, holds the nationality of a third country alongside Belgian nationality. He has played professionally in Belgium for many years. He spent several seasons with Royal Antwerp, a professional football club based in Belgium, and now plays for another Belgian professional club. UEFA is an association governed by Swiss law, based in Nyon (...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 29 July 2024; it is no longer updated. For more, see the timeline Case facts Outline A reference from Portugal asks for guidance on how Article 101 TFEU should be interpreted regarding certain exchanges of information. Latest developments On 29 July 2024, the Court of Justice held that a solitary exchange of confidential data between rivals can amount to a restriction by object. That applies where the information is confidential and strategic, as it can disclose a competitor’s intended future conduct on the relevant market. Parties Applicants: Banco BPN/ BIC Português, SA, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA, Portuguese branch, Banco Português de Investimento SA ( BPI), Banco Espírito Santo SA (in liquidation), Banco Santander Totta SA, Barclays Bank Plc, Caixa Económica Montepio Geral – Caixa Económica Bancária, SA, Caixa Geral de...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position as at the decision of 7 September 2017; it is no longer maintained. See the timeline and commentary for further information. Case facts Outline National reference from the Austrian Oberster Gerichtshof ( Austrian Supreme Court) to the Court of Justice seeking a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, aimed at clarifying whether converting a solely controlled undertaking into a jointly controlled joint venture can constitute a 'concentration' within the meaning of the EU Merger Regulation, as defined therein, where the resulting joint venture is not 'full-function' in nature (ie lacks the necessary independence from its parents). Central to this issue—and its consequences for when transactions must be notified to the European Commission in practice—is interpreting and understanding the interaction between Articles 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the EU Merger...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub captures the position as at the date of the judgment of 3 March 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, the timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Case C-75/18 Vodafone Magyarország — a reference from Hungary seeking clarification on whether, among other tax matters, progressively taxing economically stronger undertakings amounts to unlawful State aid in favour of weaker undertakings Latest developments On 21 January 2020, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment Parties Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési Zrt. ( Vodafone). Vodafone is a Hungarian public limited company. Its sole shareholder is Vodafone Europe BV, a company registered in the...
CASE HUB This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 3 April 2019 and is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary, and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C‑617/17 Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie — a national reference from Poland seeking clarification of the ne bis in idem (double jeopardy) principle and its operation in concurrent competition enquiries and parallel investigations. Latest developments On 3 April 2019, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment in Case C‑617/17 Powszechny Zaklad Ubezpieczeń na Zycie S. A., a reference from Poland asking how ne bis in idem (double jeopardy) applies where a national competition authority ( NCA) has levied a fine on an undertaking for anti‑competitive behaviour following the parallel application of both national and EU competition rules. In that decision, the Court of Justice concurred with Advocate General Wahl’s opinion and held that fines...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this case hub captures the position as at the judgment date of 20 December 2017 and is no longer updated. See also: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVE—20/12/2017 Outline Appeal lodged by Trioplast challenging the General Court’s ruling that entirely rejected an action to annul a Commission letter requesting late interest linked to a fine set by the Commission on 30 November 2015 (concerning a Trioplast subsidiary and its involvement in the ‘industrial bags’ cartel) ( AT.38354). That correspondence was issued in the context of measures adopted by the Commission following the General Court’s judgment in Case T-40/16 Trioplast Industrier v Commission, which reduced the fine for which Trioplast was held jointly and severally liable. Outcome On 20 December 2017, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment dismissing Trioplast’s appeal in full, on the basis that the General Court was right to conclude the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the date of the decision on 14 November 2017; it is no longer maintained and remains archived. See further: timeline, case commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline A national reference by the French Cour de cassation ( French Supreme Court) was made to the Court of Justice, under Article 267 TFEU, for a preliminary ruling, seeking, in essence, to clarify whether, indeed, certain specific concerted practices and joint arrangements relating to the production and marketing of endive in France—conduct that would otherwise breach Article 101 TFEU and/or Member State equivalent—might nevertheless potentially fall outside the prohibition on restrictive agreements, owing to the agricultural sector’s particular features and importance in the EU, and, in particular, the precedence the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy ( CAP), in principle, enjoys over competition law objectives under the TFEU......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 20 June 2013; it is not updated. For more, see: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline An appeal by Guillermo Cañas challenged the General Court’s ruling dismissing his action seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 12 October 2009, which had declined his complaint for lack of sufficient Community interest. The complaint alleged breaches of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by the World Anti- Doping Agency, Association of Tennis Professionals Tour Inc, and the International Council of Arbitration for Sport ( ICAS). On 20 June 2013, the Court of Justice rejected the appeal in full. The dispute centres on whether an applicant for annulment of a Commission decision possesses, and retains, a legally relevant interest in the outcome of the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 14 January 2021; it is no longer kept up to date. See also the timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C-450/19 Kilpailu- ja kuluttajavirasto — a national reference from Finland seeking clarification as to whether, amongst other things, Article 101 TFEU can be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances where a cartel participant has entered into a contract with a player outside the cartel, the competition infringement persists for the entire period during which contractual obligations arising from that contract are discharged or payments for the works are made (i.e. the moment when the last instalment for the works is paid, or at least up to the point when the works in question are completed)......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 26 September 2013; it is no longer maintained. Archived case hub — this record preserves the state as at the judgment dated 26 September 2013; it is no longer updated and not maintained......
CASE HUB See further, timeline. Case facts Outline: Appeal directed at the General Court’s judgment in Case T‑286/09 RENV (after remittal by the Court of Justice), which partially set aside the Commission’s decision of 13 May 2009 that found an infringement and imposed a fine on Intel Corporation for the alleged abuse of a dominant position through conditional rebates and loyalty payments ( Case AT.37990). Outcome On 18 January 2024, Advocate General Medina issued her opinion proposing that the Court of Justice dismiss the appeal. Advocate General Medina addressed only two of the Commission’s grounds of appeal, concerning purported errors by the General Court in assessing how the as‑efficient‑competitor ( AEC) test applied to the exclusivity rebates offered by Intel Corporation to Hewlett‑ Packard ( HP) and Lenovo Group Ltd ( Lenovo)......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment dated 11 April 2013; it is not being maintained. Case facts Outline: Mindo Srl lodged an appeal against the General Court’s finding that there was no need to rule on its request for partial annulment of the Commission decision of 20 October 2005 concerning Mindo Srl’s alleged participation in a purchasing cartel for Italian raw tobacco. The dispute centres on the exposure to, and payment of, fines by a debtor held jointly and severally liable, and on how applicants evidence an interest in bringing proceedings before the General Court. Parties Appellant: Mindo Srl ( Mindo) Other party: European Commission Mindo is an Italian undertaking, now in liquidation, engaged in the initial processing of raw tobacco, accounting for 11.28% of Italy’s raw tobacco output in 2001. The entity directly involved in the cartel was Dimon Italia Srl, a...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 24 September 2020; it is no longer being updated. For additional detail, see the timeline and related or relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C-516/19 NMI Technologietransfer—a national reference from Germany asking whether, among other issues, the GBER should be read as barring domestic rules that prevent a business from being treated as an SME where it is 90% owned by a trust (not involved in day-to-day management and largely comprising persons representing public bodies). Latest developments On 24 September 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its ruling, holding (amongst other points) that the GBER (namely Regulation No 651/2014) does not prevent an undertaking from being considered an SME where its capital-holding body is predominantly formed of members representing public bodies. Parties Applicant: NMI...
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
