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 sets out the position as at the decision of 20 January 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline A reference for a preliminary ruling was made by the Italian Consiglio di Stato to the Court of Justice under Article 267 TFEU, aiming to determine the correct approach to the treatment of leniency applications where an undertaking files with both a national competition authority ( NCA) and the European Commission—clarifying, amongst other matters, whether, on a proper construction of Article 101 TFEU, Article 4(3) TEU and Article 11 of Regulation No 1/2003, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, it follows that an NCA may not depart from instruments developed and adopted within the European Competition Network ( ECN) and, in particular, from the ECN’s Model Leniency...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 7 July 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and related/similar cases Case facts Outline National reference by the French Cour d’appel de Paris to the Court of Justice seeking a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU on whether, under Article 101 TFEU, Genentech could be required to pay royalties for licensed technology where the relevant patent had been revoked. On 7 July 2016, the Court of Justice concluded that Article 101 TFEU does not bar a royalty obligation, even when the licensee’s conduct would not constitute infringement of the patented technology, provided the licensee retained the unfettered ability to terminate the licence on reasonable notice... Latest development On 7 July 2016, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment, holding that Article 101 TFEU does not prevent an...
CASE HUB (date of judgment—18/06/2015) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 18 June 2015; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline An appeal was brought by Deutsche Bahn alongside several group subsidiaries challenging the General Court judgment that had upheld the Commission’s decision of 14 March 2011 authorising dawn raids at Deutsche Bahn premises on 29 March 2011, and later decisions sanctioning additional inspections, after allegations that Deutsche Bahn (and its subsidiaries) had abused a dominant position. On 18 June 2015, the Court of Justice set aside the General Court’s ruling to the extent that it rejected Deutsche Bahn’s plea alleging a violation of the rights of defence in light of irregularities tainting the conduct of the first inspection, and it annulled the contested Commission decisions. The case...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This case hub is archived and captures the status as at the judgment of 9 November 2023; it is no longer updated. See also the timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T-425/18, which partially rejected an action to annul the Commission’s decision of 24 April 2018 imposing a €124.5m fine on Altice Europe for putting into effect its acquisition of PT Portugal before notifying and obtaining clearance from the European Commission under the EU Merger Regulation ( EUMR). Outcome On 9 November 2023, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment and largely dismissed the appeal. It found no error by the General Court: in concluding that the Commission was entitled to impose a fine for breaches of Articles 4(1) and 7(1) EUMR; and in determining that veto rights contained in the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the status as at the judgment dated 19 December 2013; it is no longer being maintained...
2024 The tables below set out finalised Court of Justice appeals concerning claims for the non-contractual liability of EU institutions arising from competition matters. For questions referred by national courts, see Court of Justice—ongoing national references. For concluded Court of Justice appeals, consult Court of Justice Article 101 TFEU appeals—closed cases tracker, Court of Justice Article 102 TFEU appeals—closed cases tracker and Court of Justice EUMR appeals—closed cases tracker. Note: this tracker excludes State aid. For State aid appeals, see General Court State aid appeals—ongoing cases tracker and Court of Justice State aid appeals—ongoing cases tracker... Case C-221/22 P Commission v Deutsche Telekom Appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T-610/19, which partly upheld a claim seeking repayment from the Commission for an overpaid fine arising from Slovak Telekom (and Deutsche...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 11 July 2024; it is not being updated. For additional detail, consult the timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline A preliminary reference from Spain requesting guidance, among other matters, on the validity of serving proceedings in a damages action linked to the trucks cartel. Latest developments On 11 July 2024, the Court of Justice delivered its ruling, stating that Article 1(1) of Regulation 1393/2007 must be read as preventing legal documents addressed to a parent company based in one Member State from being lawfully served on that company’s subsidiary located in another Member State, even where the parent and subsidiary constitute a single economic entity. Articles 101 TFEU and 47 of the Charter do not change that conclusion. Parties Applicant: AB Volvo (hereafter, Volvo) Respondent: Transsaqui S. L. Market:...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 18 March 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline An appeal was brought before the Court of Justice against the General Court’s ruling in Case T-433/16, which in part annulled an action seeking to set aside the Commission’s decision concerning the steel abrasives cartel ( AT.39792). Latest development On 18 March 2021, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, concurring with Advocate General Hogan, and partially allowed the appeal because the General Court infringed the principle of equal treatment when fixing the penalty on Pometon Sp A. The Court of Justice lowered the fine to €2.6m. Parties Appellant: Pometon Sp A ( Pometon) Defendant: European Commission Market(s) Steel abrasives. These are loose steel granules used to cleanse or improve metal surfaces across the steel,...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment of 4 December 2014 and is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline A reference from the Gerechtshof Den Haag ( Hague District Court) to the Court of Justice under Article 267 TFEU sought clarification on whether a clause in a collective labour agreement that sets a minimum rate — covering not only employees but also self‑employed individuals carrying out the same work on the basis of a professional services contract — falls outside Article 101 TFEU, or otherwise qualifies for exemption from the Article 101(1) TFEU prohibition, by virtue of being part of a collective labour agreement. On 4 December 2014, the Court of Justice ruled that such a provision will fall outside the scope of Article 101(1) TFEU only where the...
CASE HUB (date of judgment—26/07/2017) See further: timeline and related/similar cases Case facts ARCHIVED — this archived entry records the position as at the decision dated 27 July 2017; it is no longer updated. Outline Appeal lodged against the General Court’s judgment rejecting AGC’s action to annul the Commission decision of 6 August 2012, by which the Hearing Officer denied AGC’s bids for confidential handling of certain material (supplied by Degussa during its leniency application) earmarked for inclusion in the public version of the ‘ Car glass cartel’ decision. On 26 July 2017, the Court of Justice held that the General Court—while mistaken as to the scope of the Hearing Officer’s powers—nonetheless explained, to the requisite legal standard, the grounds on which it considered the Commission justified in releasing the information concerned. The case centres on the Commission’s process and latitude in assessing...
The tables below set out finalised competition Court of Justice appeal matters under Article 102 TFEU. For ongoing Court of Justice appeals, see Court of Justice appeals—ongoing cases tracker. For concluded General Court appeals connected to Article 102 TFEU, see General Court Article 102 TFEU appeals—closed cases tracker. 2024 Case C- 240/22 P Commission v Intel Corporation Appeal against the General Court’s ruling in Case T- 286/09 RENV, which partly allowed an appeal against an earlier General Court judgment upholding the Commission’s Intel— AT.37990 decision. See Application Judgment delivered—23/10/2024; appeal dismissed Opinion delivered—18/01/2024; AG Medina advised that the Court of Justice dismiss the appeal Lodged—05/04/2022 Case C- 255/22 P Orlen v Commission Appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 616/18 Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission, which rejected an appeal challenging the Commission’s acceptance of binding commitments from Gazprom under Article 9 of...
The tables below set out concluded competition Court of Justice appeal cases relating to Article 101 TFEU. For current Court of Justice appeals, see Court of Justice appeals—ongoing cases tracker. For concluded General Court appeals under Article 101 TFEU, see General Court Article 101 TFEU appeals—closed cases tracker. 2025 Case Issues Latest development Case C- 367/22 P Air Canada v Commission Appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 326/17, which upheld the Commission’s readopted Air Freight ( AT.39258) decision, while some fines were reduced. See Application Judgment—26/02/2026; appeal wholly dismissed Opinion—05/09/2024; AG Rantos proposed dismissal Hearing—10/04/2024 Lodged—07/06/2022 Case C- 369/22 P Air France v Commission Appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 338/18, upholding the Commission’s readopted Air Freight ( AT.39258) decision, with certain fines reduced. See Application ...
CASE HUB (date of judgment—21/09/2017) See further: timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVED — this case hub, retained for record, reflects the position at the date of the decision of 21 September 2017; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeals lodged against judgments of the General Court that, for the most part, upheld the Commission’s re‑adopted decision of 30 September 2009 (as amended by a later decision of 8 December 2009) in proceedings previously pursued under Article 65 of the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty ( ECSC). That decision found infringements and imposed overall fines of €85m (revised to €83.25m under the re‑adopted decision) on several steel‑making companies for their alleged participation in a price‑fixing cartel concerning the supply of concrete bars in Italy between 1989 and 2000 (‘ Reinforcing bars cartel’)......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment date of 5 December 2023; it is no longer being updated. See the timeline for more details. Case facts Outline Appeals contesting the General Court’s judgment in Case T-516/18, which rejected an action seeking to annul the Commission’s decision of 20 June 2018. That decision concluded Luxembourg had provided unlawful State aid to Engie (formerly GDF Suez) through improper tax advantages ( SA.44888). Latest developments On 5 December 2023, the Court of Justice delivered its ruling, allowing the appeal and annulling the Commission’s decision of 20 June 2018......
CASE HUB (date of judgments—10/03/2016) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVED — this hub is archived and captures the position as at the 10 March 2016 decision date; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeals were lodged against the General Court’s judgments which, for the most part, endorsed the Commission decisions of 30 March 2011 directing the addressees (companies involved in the supply of cement and related products) to provide information in the context of a then‑ongoing investigation into suspected anti‑competitive practices in European‑wide markets for cement and related products. On 31 July 2015, the Commission closed its investigation, confirming that the evidence gathered was not sufficiently conclusive to substantiate its initial concerns. On 10 March 2016, the Court of Justice set aside the General Court’s judgments and annulled the impugned decisions. These cases concern, amongst other matters, questions about the proper and lawful...
CASE HUB See further, timeline. Case facts Outline A preliminary reference from Portugal asks whether, among other points, Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU bars the seizure of corporate records generated by e‑mail exchanges between managers and staff of undertakings during an inquiry under Article 101 TFEU. The question concerns materials created by workplace correspondence and their treatment during competition enquiries at EU level. Latest developments On 20 June 2024, Advocate General Medina delivered an opinion advising that Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union does not bar national rules under which, during an inspection at an undertaking’s premises as part of a probe into a breach of Article 101 or 102 TFEU, the national competition authority may look for and take emails whose content concerns the scope of the inspection without prior judicial...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment of 26 September 2018 and is no longer maintained. NOTE—case sent back to the General Court ( Case T‑758/14 RENV). See also: timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Infineon appealed against the General Court’s ruling that upheld the Commission’s decision of 3 September 2014 ( Case AT.39226), which found a breach of Article 101 TFEU and imposed fines on Infineon for its alleged involvement in a cartel concerning the supply of smart card chips. Outcome On 26 September 2018, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, partially allowing the appeal, setting aside the General Court’s judgment and remitting the case to the General Court. It held that the General Court’s judgment in Case T‑758/14 was affected by an error of law regarding the General Court’s exercise of its unlimited...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment of 16 January 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further the timeline, commentary and related cases for more information. Case facts Outline Appeal to the Court of Justice by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court, which annulled the Commission’s decision to prohibit UPS’s proposed acquisition of TNT. Latest development On 16 January 2019, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, rejecting the Commission’s appeal in its entirety. Parties Applicant: United Parcel Service Inc ( UPS) Defendant: European Commission UPS, a US-based company, and TNT Express NV ( TNT), a Netherlands-based company, both offer small package delivery services through integrated air and ground networks, constituting an ‘integrated’ service. Within the EEA, UPS and TNT are active on the international express small package delivery...
This Practice Note examines the care worker offences introduced by sections 20 and 21 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 ( CJCA 2015). These offences have applied since 13 April 2015. Prevention of ill-treatment or neglect regime CJCA 2015 added two offences to the suite of mechanisms aimed at safeguarding vulnerable people from wilful neglect and ill-treatment by those, whether individuals or organisations, responsible for their care. The other principal measures are: section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 ( CYPA 1933) section 127 of the Mental Health Act 1983 ( Me HA 1983) section 44 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 ( MCA 2005) CYPA 1933, s 1 safeguards children and young persons from neglect or ill-treatment by any person with ‘responsibility’ for them, chiefly parents. Me HA 1983, s 127 makes it an offence for hospital and care home...
This Practice Note addresses the common law gateways for admitting hearsay in criminal cases that are expressly retained by section 118(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 ( CJA 2003). The framework on hearsay is contained in the CJA 2003. For additional guidance, see the Practice Note: Admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings. Notwithstanding the statutory scheme, CJA 2003, s 118 preserves several traditional exceptions to the hearsay rule... Preserved categories of admissibility The common law exceptions maintained by section 118 are: public information reputation as to character reputation and family tradition res gestae confessions admissions by agents common enterprise expert evidence No notice is required to rely on hearsay that is admissible under any of these common law exceptions pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 ( Crim PR 2025), SI 2025/909, Pt 20......
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
