Featured documents
This Practice Note outlines the law concerning criminal recklessness. The subjective test for recklessness Certain statutory and common law offences allow the prosecution to prove mens rea through ‘recklessness’. Put simply, recklessness is where the accused takes an unjustified risk that results in unlawful harm or damage. The House of Lords in R v G reaffirmed the subjective approach to recklessness. Before R v G, two distinct tests were used, depending on the offence charged: Subjective recklessness from R v Cunningham: the prosecution had to establish that the accused personally foresaw the risk. Objective recklessness from R v Caldwell: the prosecution only needed to show that the risk would have been obvious to a reasonable person, without proving the accused themselves foresaw it. In R v G, the House of Lords concluded that the objective test could operate unfairly where a defendant did not foresee the
This Practice Note examines the remedy of rescission, explaining when and in what manner a contract can be unwound (at common law, in equity and under statute) and thereby terminated and brought to an end. It covers the consequences and effects of rescission, the principal grounds for setting aside an agreement (misrepresentation, mistake, undue influence, duress, non‑disclosure, fiduciary misdealing and bribery) and the main obstacles to claiming rescission—affirmation, the intervention of third‑party rights and the impossibility of restitution. For further guidance on rescission in the context of misrepresentation, see Practice Note: Misrepresentation—rescission as a remedy. There are many ways in which a contract may reach its end; see: Terminating contracts—how and when a contract ends—overview for a brief and accessible summary, with links to the related further practical guidance, including Practice Note: Termination and expiry of contracts. For a table
What is a res judicata? A res judicata is a determination by a court or tribunal with jurisdiction over the cause of action and the parties, which finally disposes of the issues decided so they cannot be litigated again by those bound, save on appeal. Final judgments entered by default or by consent fall within this concept, whereas rulings on purely procedural points and any decision lacking finality do not. The doctrine’s aim is to bring litigation to an end and shield parties from being harassed by the same dispute twice. in personam—binds the parties and their privies in rem—binds all persons, privy or otherwise (ie a judgment binding the whole world) A party may rely on res judicata: as an estoppel to defeat an opponent’s claim or defence; and/or as the basis of their own claim or
The offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent can be tried solely in the Crown Court on indictment. Elements of the offence Under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (OATPA 1861), the prosecution must establish that the defendant unlawfully and maliciously: wounded with the intention of causing GBH, or caused GBH with that intention, or wounded intending to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of any person, or caused GBH intending to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of any person ‘Unlawfully’ and ‘maliciously’ Unlawfully The wounding or causing of GBH must be unlawful. Such conduct may be lawful if used: in self-defence in defence of another in defence of property for the prevention of crime where the victim gave express or implied consent For further information on these defences, see below:
Most recent Practice notes
The UK PRIIPs Regulation, UK implementation and Brexit The purpose of this Practice Note is to set out an overview of the UK Packaged Retail and Insurance-based Investment Products ( PRIIPs) Regulation ( Assimilated Regulation ( EU) 1286/2014), which is being superseded by a UK retail investor disclosure regime for Consumer Composite Investments ( CCIs). Central to the PRIIPs framework is the obligation on product manufacturers to prepare a standardised, pre-investment Key Information Document ( KID) for each PRIIP, enabling retail investors to compare products and decide whether a PRIIP suits their needs. The approach is not novel, drawing largely from the undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities ( UCITS) Key Investor Information Document ( KIID). For further detail on the EU PRIIPs Regulation and associated level 2 measures—covering scope, principal requirements, and the prescribed form and content of the KID—see Practice Note: EU...
Facts Sharon and Lee have been married for 30 years and are parents to two children. At 75, Lee is facing mobility challenges, and it has been determined that his needs are best met in a nursing home, as Sharon is unable to look after him at home. They own their property as joint tenants with no mortgage. Their savings total £60,000 in Lee's name and £30,000 in Sharon's. Lee has a net annuity of £25,000 per annum, while Sharon's net annuity amounts to £10,000 per annum. Both receive the state pension: Lee is paid £184.90 per week (annually £9614.80) and Sharon gets £82.40 weekly (annually £4,284.80). Lee's pensions are paid into their joint account and used to cover the household bills......
While private sector defined benefit pension schemes ( DB schemes) have been dwindling over time, more than 5,000 such schemes still persist within the private arena, collectively covering upwards of nine million members in total. Fears about deficits and attempts by employers to sidestep obligations have notably created an intricate mix of regulation and legislation, increasingly requiring lenders and their advisers to carefully factor DB schemes in from the very start of any deal and throughout both any restructuring and any insolvency process. The Pensions Act 2004 ( Pe A 2004) empowered the Pensions Regulator ( TPR) to issue contribution notices or financial support directions to those connected to or associated with the scheme employer, ultimately rendering them responsible for providing backing or finance to underfunded DB schemes (the so‑called ‘ Moral Hazard’ powers). In addition, Pe A 2004 brought in a...
What is an orphan linkage? An ‘orphan linkage’ exists when no suitable persons are identified for a significant contaminant linkage ( SCL). This situation may arise in the following specific circumstances: the SCL pertains solely to pollution of controlled waters and no Class A person can be located neither Class A nor Class B persons can be found those who would otherwise be responsible are exempt under one of the relevant statutory provisions Who pays for remediation where there is an orphan linkage? Who pays for the remediation of orphan linkages depends on how many SCLs are present on site, and how the remediation actions......
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision to accept commitments on 22 July 2024; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary Case facts Outline Article 102 TFEU probe into Vifor regarding alleged denigration of the closest rival therapy in Europe for intravenous iron treatment, Pharmacosmos’ Monofer ( AT.40577). Latest development On 22 July 2024, the Commission accepted Vifor’s commitments (see details below) and accordingly brought its inquiry to a close. Parties Vifor Pharma Ltd ( Vifor). Vifor is a global pharmaceutical company within the biotechnology group CSL, which develops, manufactures and markets pharmaceutical products worldwide to treat iron deficiency, as well as nephrology and cardio‑renal conditions. Background On 20 June 2022, the Commission initiated a formal antitrust investigation to evaluate whether Vifor restricted competition by unlawfully disparaging its nearest competitor in Europe in the...
Background to this Practice Note In this Practice Note, the term 'cryptoasset' follows the definition in the Markets in Cryptoassets Regulation ( Mi CA): a digital representation of value or rights that can be transferred and held electronically using distributed ledger technology or similar technology. Within its legislative programme for Mi CA, the European Commission indicates that a straightforward taxonomy of 'cryptoassets' divides them into: payment tokens (used as a medium of exchange or for payment) investment tokens (to which profit rights are attached) utility tokens (granting access to a particular product or service) Mi CA also includes specific provisions addressing 'stablecoins'. A 'stablecoin' is a variety of cryptoasset whose value is pegged to an external asset, such as a fiat currency or gold, to stabilise pricing, or one whose value is set by an...
Aims of PSD2 The Second Payment Services Directive ( PSD2) took effect in January 2016, with application from 13 January 2018. Since then, various delegated acts and regulatory technical standards have been issued and adopted. PSD2 folded in, repealed and replaced the original Payment Services Directive 2007/64/ EC ( PSD1). Its core objectives are to foster competition, bolster consumer protection and build a single payments market across the European Economic Area ( EEA). It also captures a broader array of payment systems, with far‑reaching consequences for market participants. Changes introduced by PSD2 PSD2 scope extended to all currencies and one-leg transactions PSD2 widens conduct of business and transparency rules to consumer transactions with one leg in the EU—payments to or from third countries where at least one payment services provider ( PSP) is in the EU. PSPs may still disapply certain information and conduct duties when serving...
Scope of this Practice Note This Practice Note sets out a summary and flags the principal elements of the second Payment Services Directive ( PSD2), which took effect on 13 January 2018. It contrasts PSD2 with the original Payment Services Directive ( PSD). It further outlines the level 2 implementing measures the European Commission must adopt under PSD2, and surveys the level 3 materials issued by the European Securities and Markets Association ( ESMA), the European Banking Authority ( EBA) and the European Commission concerning PSD2. For details on parallel provisions in the Payment Services Regulations 2017, SI 2017/752 ( PSRs 2017), refer to Practice Note: UK regulation of payment services providers—essentials Background to PSD2 Member States had to implement the first Payment Services Directive ( Directive 2007/64/ EC) ( PSD) by 1 November 2009. Its purpose was to oversee payment services providers ( PSPs) and...
What is the Payment Accounts Directive and what are the key protections it offers consumers? The Payment Accounts Directive ( PAD) is designed to improve transparency and comparability for consumers in relation to payment accounts. In particular, the PAD: helps consumers compare charges applied by banks and other providers across the European Union ( EU) makes it simpler for consumers to switch payment accounts gives all EU consumers the right to open a payment account that enables essential activities such as receiving wages and paying bills This Practice Note explains the background and provides an overview of the PAD’s provisions, together with the technical standards and guidelines issued under it. It should be read alongside Practice Note: UK payment accounts requirements—essentials, which outlines the UK implementation of the PAD through the Payment Accounts Regulations 2015, SI 2015/2038 ( PARs 2015). It also...
STOP PRESS: Commission Delegated Act of 7 May 2026 complements changes introduced by the EU Listing Act and sets out requirements relating to the format of the prospectus, sequence of disclosure items and scrutiny and approval of the prospectus. The Delegated Act builds on the EU Listing Act reforms, prescribing rules for prospectus format, the ordering of disclosure items, and the review and approval process. It also adds a new annex and tailored disclosure obligations for non‑equity instruments marketed as considering ESG factors or pursuing ESG objectives. From 5 June 2026, the Listing Act amendments on the format, content, scrutiny and approval of prospectuses will apply to new debt issuances. Given the expected delay to the Delegated Act’s application, ESMA issued guidance on 7 May 2026 advising market participants to use its provisions to identify the additional granular disclosures required to meet Level 1...
This month brought the routine update to merger control thresholds in Canada, the European Commission’s adoption of a revised Market Definition Notice, and the Ugandan President’s assent to the long‑awaited Competition Act, which introduces a mandatory merger control regime. Canada—thresholds remain the same in 2024 The Canadian Competition Bureau has confirmed that, after its annual review, the notification thresholds under Canada’s merger control rules will remain unchanged for 2024. In brief, the thresholds are: Size of transaction test: the target must be, or control, an ‘operating business’ in Canada with over CDN $93m (approximately €63.7m/ US$68.9m) in Canadian assets (book value) or gross revenues produced by these assets from sales ‘in or from’ Canada (ie domestic plus export sales), and Size of parties test: all parties and their affiliates (together) must collectively hold over CDN $400m...
This month has brought the restart of Brazil’s merger review deadline after CADE’s minimum quorum was restored, the Chinese government’s adoption of amendments to merger control thresholds, the Canadian government unveiling further changes to Canadian competition law (including for merger control) and key amendments to the Competition Act taking effect, new updates to the UAE’s merger control regime coming into force, and US antitrust agencies releasing new merger guidelines. Brazil—merger deadlines resume following minimum quorum at the CADE being re-established In our November 2023 merger monthly update, we noted that the merger deadline had been suspended due to CADE’s lack of quorum, which meant transactions could not close and so faced gun jumping risk. On 27 December 2023, the Federal Official Gazette announced the appointment of the Court’s new members, José Levi Mello do Amaral Júnior, Camila Cabral Pires Alves, Diogo Thomson de Andrade and Carlos...
This month has brought reports on potential thresholds for a planned mandatory merger control regime in Australia, together with an announcement by the Australian government of a review of competition law (including merger control) and the creation of a Competition Taskforce, the Competition and Commission Protection Commission in Ireland issuing fresh merger guidance ahead of commencement of the Competition ( Amendment) Act 2022, the arrival of a new transaction value threshold in Russia, the Ukrainian Parliament approving reforms to the competition law regime, including as regards merger control, and changes to merger control thresholds in Uzbekistan. Australia—reports of possible introduction of mandatory merger control regime; government also announces review of competition laws and sets up a taskforce There are two items to note from Australia. First, material reportedly obtained from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ( ACCC) under Freedom of...
This month brings clearer guidance on Cambodia’s merger thresholds and filing procedures; the Canadian Competition Bureau has unveiled recommended reforms to merger control alongside a higher merger filing fee; Indonesia’s competition authority is consulting on a revamp of its merger regime; Italy’s annual threshold adjustments have taken effect; Saudi Arabia has raised its notification thresholds; and Taiwan’s Fair Trade Commission has expanded the range of transactions eligible for the simplified merger review... Cambodia— CCC issues new regulations for merger notifications On 6 March 2023, the Cambodia Competition Commission ( CCC) adopted Sub-decree No. 60, setting out how parties should submit merger notifications to the CCC. In addition, on 14 March 2023, the CCC released Decision No. 95, which clarifies the thresholds under Cambodia’s merger control framework. It remains uncertain when Sub-decree No. 60 and Decision No. 95 will take effect. The principal points of...
This month has witnessed numerous competition regulators persisting with measures linked to the coronavirus ( COVID-19) crisis that affect merger control assessments, together with a reminder about the new streamlined procedure in the Republic of Ireland, which is scheduled to take effect next month as well. Coronavirus ( COVID-19) Responses—impact on merger control reviews Competition agencies globally have introduced steps influencing merger control reviews, although some have begun to resume ordinary operations; for instance, suspensions of deadlines have now ceased and schedules are reverting to usual in certain jurisdictions, such as Austria, Paraguay, Serbia and Spain at this time already, as circumstances permit in practice. To monitor these actions amid an evolving and unparalleled context, we have issued a paper that collates and explains the latest developments clearly. See MJ merger control–competition authorities and coronavirus ( COVID-19) status [ Archived] for details...
This month brought approved changes to Germany’s merger control framework (including revised thresholds), routine threshold updates in Colombia, Belarus and Costa Rica, fresh thresholds entering into force in Greenland, approval of a new mandatory pre-merger notification regime in Peru, and announcements of annual threshold revisions in Mexico and Uzbekistan... Germany—amendments passed and new notification thresholds announced The German parliament has adopted amendments to competition law, updating the merger control regime. The changes raise notification thresholds. Transactions must be notified when either of two threshold groups is satisfied: Threshold group one: the combined global turnover of all undertakings concerned is above €500m (around US$608.3m) (unchanged), and the domestic turnover of at least one undertaking concerned exceeds €50m (around US$60.8m) (up from €25m), and the domestic...
Over the past month, Ukraine has temporarily halted merger reviews because of Russia’s invasion, Turkey has implemented notable changes to its merger control thresholds, and Belgium’s Parliament has also introduced a filing fee for merger notifications. This round-up also records the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine clarifying merger control processes in response to Russia’s attack on Ukraine, the recent annual threshold updates in Italy, brand-new merger control thresholds taking effect now in Israel, and the Indian government formally prolonging the de minimis merger exemption until March 2027. Ukraine— AMC ceases operations and temporarily suspends merger reviews On 24 February 2022, following declaration of martial law after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Antimonopoly Committee ( AMC) relocated from Kyiv to Lviv. On 7 March 2022, the AMC formally announced it had paused (among other filings) all of its merger reviews that were not concluded by 24 February...
In this monthly round‑up ( April 2022), the UK Government has this month unveiled its much‑anticipated overhaul of the competition law framework, including merger enforcement; the Ukraine Competition Authority has provided further clarity on the merger review process during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine; India has amended the Form II notification (long form); and Zimbabwe has also introduced revised thresholds for merger control. UK—key changes to merger enforcement On 20 April 2022, the Government formally set out its long‑awaited package of reforms to the competition law regime. With respect to merger control, it has indicated its plans to take forward the following principal policy changes: retain the UK’s voluntary, non‑suspensory merger system in place increase the target’s UK turnover threshold in line with inflation from £70m to £100m (while the intervention threshold for media mergers on public interest grounds will remain...
This Practice Note considers the Financial Conduct Authority’s ( FCA) statutory powers under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds ( Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, SI 2017/692 ( MLRs). It examines the FCA’s remit under the MLRs, including: the FCA’s supervisory responsibilities, such as obligations to disclose matters to the National Crime Agency ( NCA) duties to co-operate with other supervisory authorities, including regulators overseas investigatory and civil enforcement powers for breaches of the MLRs, covering information requests, the ability to fine, censure or impose restrictions on firms, and to apply to the court for an injunction criminal powers to prosecute offences under the MLRs, and the FCA’s approach to civil or criminal action for MLR contraventions as described in its Enforcement Guide ( ENFG) For details on FCA supervisory priority areas in...
This Practice Notice outlines the structure and legal framework of Directive 2009/138/ EC (the Solvency II Directive). Solvency II sets the capital, governance and reporting requirements for insurance firms. The Practice Note further summarises the consultations and draft technical standards released to support Directive ( EU) 2025/2 (the Solvency II amending Directive) following the Solvency II review. Solvency II—overview Solvency II is the EU regime for entry into business and supervision of insurance and reinsurance undertakings (collectively, 'firms'). The Solvency II Directive replaced 14 prior directives (known as Solvency I) and delivers a maximum harmonising system to secure cross-border consistency. It aligns with other financial services legislation, notably the banking supervision framework ( CRD IV/ CRR—for more information, see Practice Note: EU CRD IV package—essentials). Mirroring CRD IV, the Solvency II Directive rests on three pillars: Pillar 1: valuation and capital...
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
