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 key issues and steps to address, preferably with counsel’s input. A vital early consideration is the selection of counsel. Selection of specialist counsel In cases of severe injury, counsel’s role is pivotal, and a solicitor will often wish to instruct an experienced junior earlier than would typically happen in more modest claims. The solicitor will want counsel closely engaged in framing the claim and in defining the approach and strategy to be pursued. It is critical that the barrister chosen is skilled and experienced in this work. Equally, it matters that they are approachable and willing to be consulted regularly. The individual appointed should be someone with whom not only the instructing solicitor, but also the claimant and family, will feel at ease. In many matters, counsel will be invited to a conference at the claimant’s home, and a strong...
Introduction This note provides swift access to precedents within the Energy module. Items marked ‘ EFP’ link to Encyclopedia of Forms and Precedents content available to Lexis®Library subscribers. Precedents are grouped by the module’s topics and subtopics; where a precedent fits several settings, its link is repeated accordingly. Within each subsection, documents appear alphabetically. Networks and network connections Connections Checklist—acquiring interests in land for renewable energy development—options, unconditional and conditional contracts: EFP, Vol 14 Energy ( Renewables) Form 4 Connection agreement for private wires Deed granting freehold easements—cables etc to be laid in, on or under third-party land outside the wind farm site: EFP Vol 14 Energy ( Renewables) Form 26 General checklist—property considerations of a renewable energy project: EFP Vol 14 Energy ( Renewables) Form 3 Lease of part of an estate or farm to be used as a...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 21 April 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Ecolab Inc brought an appeal against the Competition and Markets Authority’s decision of 7 October, which barred Ecolab’s completed takeover of The Holchem Group Limited and required the full divestment of The Holchem Group Limited (i.e. to unwind the deal). Latest development On 21 April 2020, the CAT handed down its judgment, dismissing the appeal in its entirety. Parties Ecolab Inc. ( Ecolab), headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, is a United States-based global supplier of water, hygiene and energy technologies and services to the food, energy, healthcare, industrial and hospitality sectors. Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA) Background The transaction On 30 November 2018, Ecolab completed the acquisition of Holchem. The transaction was announced on 5...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment of 19 April 2021; it is no longer being maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Roland ( U. K.) Limited and Roland Corporation appealed against a penalty arising from the Competition and Markets Authority’s decision of 29 June 2020, which found they had breached the Chapter I prohibition of the Competition Act 1998 and/or Article 101 TFEU. The infringement concerned online resale price maintenance for electronic drumkits and associated products with a single UK distributor during 7 January 2011 to 17 April 2018 (case number 50565–5). The CMA imposed a £4m fine on Roland ( U. K.) Limited. Latest development On 19 April 2021, the CAT handed down its judgment, dismissing the appeal in full. The CAT concluded that: resale price maintenance is a serious ‘by object’ breach of the...
Advanz Pharma Corp. Limited & Others v CMA; Ciniven Capital Management ( V) General Partner Limited & Others v CMA; Lexon ( UK) Limited & Another v CMA; Alliance Pharmaceuticals Limited & Another v CMA ( Prochlorpezarine tablets) [ Archived] CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 23 May 2024; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline The appeals were brought by Advanz Pharma Corp. Limited, Ciniven Capital Management ( V) General Partner Limited, Lexon ( UK) Limited, and Alliance Pharmaceuticals Limited & Another v CMA, contesting the CMA’s 2 February 2022 decision arising from its Chapter I investigation into suspected anti‑competitive agreements in relation to the supply of 3mg buccal tablets in the UK, which imposed fines totalling over £35m. Latest...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 18/01/2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary Case facts Outline J Sainsbury plc and Asda Group Limited appealed two decisions about the procedural timetable for their proposed merger with each other, arising during the CMA’s review. The decisions concerned: the deadlines by which the parties had to respond to a range of working papers; the timing set for the parties’ main party hearing. Parties J Sainsbury plc ( Sainsbury’s) and Asda Group Limited ( Asda). Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA). Background On 12 December 2018, Sainsbury’s and Asda made an application to the Competition Appeal Tribunal ( CAT) seeking judicial review of the CMA’s timetable and procedure within its investigation into the proposed merger between the parties (see further, J Sainsbury/ Asda). On 19...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment dated 13 November 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, imeline and commentary. Case facts Outline An appeal by Facebook against the CMA’s refusal to grant derogations from an IEO imposed in relation to Facebook’s completed acquisition of Giphy via a stock conversion undertaken by its wholly-owned subsidiary, Tabby Acquisition. Latest development On 13 November 2020, the CAT handed down its judgment, dismissing the appeal in full. Parties Applicant Facebook, Inc., a US-based company, is a social media conglomerate. Facebook UK Limited delivers sales support, marketing services and engineering support to the Facebook group and acts as a reseller of advertising services to larger UK customers (together, Facebook). Respondent Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA). Other parties Giphy Inc ( Giphy), a UK-based company, operates an online database and search engine primarily enabling users to...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 16/08/2019; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline Lebedev Holdings Limited brought an appeal seeking a review of the Public Interest Intervention Notice ( PIIN) that the Secretary of State for DCMS issued on 27 June 2019 under section 42(2) of the Enterprise Act 2002... Parties Lebedev Holdings Limited ( LHL): LHL is a holding entity and the majority owner of Evening Standard Limited, which, amongst other activities, produces the Evening Standard printed newspaper and operates the Evening Standard news website. Independent Digital News and Media Limited ( IDMN): IDMN is a digital consumer media company providing news and entertainment via its websites indpendent.co.uk and indy100, as well as through its mobile application, The Independent Digital Edition. Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (...
Step-by-step guide A protection buyer (party A) and a protection seller (party B) execute an ISDA Master Agreement, the accompanying Schedule, and a confirmation document with one another to document a CDS contract. The contract explicitly names a specific reference entity. Within the confirmation, both parties state that, if a credit event occurs for that reference entity, the deal will be cash settled. Party A undertakes to pay party B a fixed fee or premium—this may......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 8 July 2020; it is no longer maintained. See also: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Referred back to the General Court following the Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C-99/17 P, Infineon Technologies v Commission (smart card chip cartel). That appeal contested the General Court’s prior judgment affirming the Commission’s decision of 3 September 2014 ( Case AT.39226), which identified an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and imposed fines on Infineon for its alleged involvement in a cartel relating to the supply of smart card chips. Outcome On 8 July 2020, the General Court handed down its judgment, partially upholding Infineon’s appeal. Parties Applicant: Infineon Technologies AG ( Infineon) Defendant: European Commission Infineon, based in Germany, is a semiconductor manufacturer active in the supply of smart card...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment date of 29 April 2015; it is not maintained. See: timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline An appeal was lodged before the General Court seeking to set aside Commission correspondence that demanded from the applicants sums mirroring fines imposed by the Commission in its decision of 31 May 2006 (concerning Total and Elf’s alleged involvement in the ‘ Acrylic glass’ cartel), and arising in the framework of steps later taken by the Commission to implement General Court judgments which lowered the penalty levied on the applicants’ subsidiaries while rejecting the applicants’ action. On 29 April 2015, the General Court quashed the disputed letters, but solely to the extent that the Commission requires Elf to pay default interest totalling €31.31m (for which Total is jointly and severally...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 8 May 2019 and is no longer updated. For further details, see timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline An appeal was lodged against the Commission’s refusal to repay a fine linked to its decisions in COMP/37.956 concerning the reinforcing bars cartel. Outcome On 8 May 2019, the General Court rejected the appeal in full. It determined that the Commission’s 2009 re-adopted decision remained effective for Lucchini because it had not itself appealed the underlying decision annulled by the Court of Justice. As a result, Lucchini was not entitled to recover the cartel fine it had paid for participation in the reinforcing bars cartel. Parties Appellant: Lucchini Sp A ( Lucchini) European Commission Lucchini Sp A manufactures steel products, producing items including steel wire, rods, bars and rail products, as well as...
Case C- 611/18 Pirelli & C. v Commission (power cables cartel) [ Archived] CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 28 October 2020; it is no longer updated. See also: timeline and relevant/similar cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 611/18 Pirelli & C. v Commission—an appeal before the Court of Justice challenging the General Court’s ruling in Case T- 455/14, which had rejected an action to annul the Commission’s decision concerning the high‑voltage power cables cartel ( AT.39610). Outcome On 12 July 2018, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, dismissing the appeal in full. Parties Appellant: Pirelli & C. Sp A (referred to as Pirelli) Defendant: European Commission (referred to as the Commission) Pirelli’s corporate structure Pirelli (previously Pirelli Sp A) is headquartered in Italy. From 18 February 1999 to 28 July 2005, it was the parent of Pirelli Cavi e...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 12 June 2014; it is no longer being updated. Case facts Outline Deltafina lodged an appeal against the General Court’s judgment that confirmed the Commission’s decision of 20 October 2005 regarding Deltafina Sp A’s involvement in a buyer cartel for Italian raw tobacco. The matter centres on the Commission’s approach to leniency, under which immunity is granted only where cooperation is “full, continuous and expeditious”, as set out in the Leniency Notice on immunity or reductions from fines. This was the first instance in which the Commission, having granted “conditional immunity” at the outset of the administrative procedure under a leniency programme, declined to award “final immunity” at the close of the administrative procedure to the undertaking that first disclosed the cartel’s...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment dated 4 June 2020 and is no longer being maintained. For more detail, see: timeline, relevant/related cases and commentary. Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court’s ruling in Joined Cases T‑554/15 and T‑555/15, which dismissed an action to annul two Commission decisions imposing the interim suspension of new Hungarian tax schemes (concerning health in the tobacco sector and food chains) pending completion of in‑depth investigations ( Cases SA.41187 and SA.40018). Latest developments On 4 July 2020, the Court of Justice allowed the appeal, set aside the General Court’s judgment and annulled the Suspension Decisions. Specifically, the Court of Justice held that the Suspension Decisions were undermined by an inadequate statement of reasons and breached Article 296 TFEU. Parties Appellant: Hungary Respondent: European Commission (the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This case hub, now archived, represents the position as at the decision dated 22 January 2013 and is no longer actively updated...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub shows the status as at the decision date of 14 March 2013; it is no longer being maintained. Case facts Relevant/related cases Case C‑286/11 P Commission v Tomkins ( Copper fittings cartel) Case C-287/11 Commission v Aalberts Industries and others ( Copper fittings cartel) Case T-386/06 Pegler v Commission Timeline Date Event Judgment Judgment: Case C-276/11 P Viega v Commission, judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 March 2013... Date Event...
Case hub archived This archived case hub records the position as at the decision of 6 December 2017 and is no longer updated. Further information: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline A reference was made by the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main ( Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt) to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU. The request sought clarification, under Article 101 TFEU, on the lawfulness of prohibitions on sales via online marketplaces within a selective distribution framework. Specifically, the German court asked whether a ‘qualitative’ selective distribution system can validly impose online sales limitations aimed at preserving a luxury brand’s image. The question emerged from proceedings in Germany between Coty Deutschland Gmb H and Parfümerie Akzente Gmb H, in which Coty Germany brought an action to prevent Akzente from selling Coty Germany products through the online platform...
CASE HUB (date of judgment—22/10/2015) ( ARCHIVE 22/10/2015) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 22 October 2015; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline AC‑ Treuhand, a consultancy, appealed against the General Court’s judgment which upheld the Commission’s 11 November 2009 decision finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA and imposing a €348,000 fine on AC‑ Treuhand for its alleged role as a facilitator of a Europe‑wide cartel concerning the supply of tin and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers (the “ Heat stabilisers cartel”). On 22 October, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal and affirmed the General Court’s judgment and, in consequence, confirmed the underlying Commission infringement decision in so far as it related to AC‑ Treuhand. The case centres on the potential liability under Article 101 TFEU of...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub records the position as at the decision of 23 January 2018 and is no longer updated. For further details see: timeline, commentary, and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline A national reference was made by the Consiglio di Stato ( Italian Council of State) to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, seeking guidance on how the regulatory regime for placing medicinal products on the market intersects with EU competition law. In particular, the Court of Justice was asked to clarify to what degree, and on which grounds, legal uncertainty surrounding the lawfulness of prescribing and marketing a medicine aimed at ‘off-label’ use, and the scientific risks tied to such use, should be taken into account when applying Article 101 TFEU......
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
