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
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the decision date of 29 September 2020 and is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline An Article 101 TFEU investigation by the European Commission into two cartels covering supplies of car closure components—door modules, window regulators, and latching systems (latches and strikers)—to European vehicle manufacturers (the Daimler Group and the BMW Group) within the EEA ( AT.40299). The arrangements involved coordinating pricing behaviour and exchanging confidential information. Latest development On 29 September 2020, the Commission adopted an infringement decision after two car part suppliers settled with the Commission and acknowledged their participation in cartels concerning the supply of car closure systems to European car manufacturers (the Daimler Group and the BMW Group) in the EEA. Fines amounting to €18m were imposed. Magna also took part but obtained full immunity under the...
This Practice Note provides links to our public company takeovers quiz, created to test users’ knowledge of the UK takeover regime in areas. Presented in multiple choice format, each question then afterwards reveals the correct answer, alongside brief feedback and links directing users to the relevant supporting materials for further reading. It is aimed at private practice solicitors, in-house counsel, corporate finance professionals, and participants actively involved directly in advising on takeover transactions. Part 1 Part 1 of the quiz addresses the......
This Practice Note explores hard and soft insurance markets and the way trading conditions influence underwriting, premiums and claims in practice over time. It also sets out practical pointers for insurance renewals. The insurance sector is often described as hard or soft, mirroring the broader economy, operating conditions and competition within the market. In a hard phase, fewer insurers are prepared to provide cover and those that do may narrow their terms and seek higher premiums. Life insurance is generally less exposed to unfavourable market shifts than non-life business, which is written for shorter periods of insurance. The market must remain adaptable and ensure its risk appetite and pricing align with changing circumstances as they evolve. An insurer’s diversified portfolio usually enables it to balance losses from one book of business against another, but it should be borne in mind that an insurer will not...
This Practice Note addresses the undertakings needed to secure a freezing injunction. In particular, it highlights the cross‑undertaking in damages, often called the ‘price’ of securing a freezing injunction, and explores in detail fortification of that cross‑undertaking, explaining what fortification is and when it is needed, who can give fortification, recognised forms of fortification, and whether discharge from fortification is possible. This Practice Note offers guidance on construing and applying the relevant CPR provisions. Depending on the court where your claim is progressing, you may need to consider additional provisions—see further Court specific guidance below. It explains who may provide fortification and the forms the court will accept, and addresses the possibility of being released from any fortification given where appropriate only. What is fortification and when is it required? For the court to grant an interim injunction, the applicant must give certain...
Practice Note on frustration This Practice Note offers a practical steer on assessing whether an unforeseen occurrence has frustrated a contract. It should be read alongside Practice Note: Discharge by frustration. Frustration is a common law doctrine in English law. It brings an agreement to an immediate close where an unexpected supervening event frustrates the bargain, making performance impossible, unlawful or so fundamentally different from what was originally agreed. Where frustration bites, all future duties under the contract are extinguished. Money paid before the supervening event and discharge can be reclaimed, while sums not yet due cease to be payable, subject to the court’s discretion under the Law Reform ( Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 ( LR( FC) A 1943) to permit recovery of expenses previously incurred. Establishing frustration is notoriously difficult. The doctrine injects uncertainty into contractual dealings, a result the courts regard...
This Practice Note sets out how to challenge designations made under the UK’s domestic sanctions regime created by the Sanctions and Anti- Money Laundering Act 2018 ( SAMLA 2018). Introduced to secure a robust post- EU sanctions framework, SAMLA 2018 enables the UK to apply financial, immigration, trade, aircraft, shipping and other sanctions necessary to meet United Nations ( UN) sanctions obligations. UK sanctions established under SAMLA 2018 that replaced EU or UN measures came fully into effect at the end of the implementation period ( IP completion day). For further guidance, see Practice Note: Development of sanctions regime in the UK post Brexit—timeline. For information on the UK domestic regime under SAMLA 2018, see Practice Notes: The UK sanctions framework under SAMLA 2018 and UK sanctions regimes currently in force. The impact of a sanctions...
Background to the Complaints Scheme Under Part 6 of the Financial Services Act 2012 ( FSA 2012), the Bank of England ( Bo E), the Financial Conduct Authority ( FCA) and the Prudential Regulation Authority ( PRA)—collectively the 'regulators'—must put in place arrangements to investigate complaints made about them. These arrangements are termed the ' Complaints Scheme' and are explained in full in the FCA and PRA/ Bo E joint document titled Complaints against the Regulators: The Complaints Scheme (updated November 2023). Part 6 also obliges the regulators, with HM Treasury’s approval, to appoint an independent individual to oversee the conduct of complaint investigations within the scope of the Complaints Scheme. This appointee is the ' Financial Regulators Complaints Commissioner' (the ' Complaints Commissioner'). See the Complaints Commissioner’s website here. The Complaints Commissioner and their team investigate complaints...
What does this Practice Note cover? This Practice Note is designed to help practitioners grasp interest provisions in Loan Market Association ( LMA) recommended form facilities agreements. It clarifies concepts, outlines the LMA position, and flags drafting considerations. Summarises, in brief, what interest rate provisions mean within a loan agreement Sets out how the LMA treats these points in its templates Highlights the principal features of facilities referencing compounded risk-free rates ( RFRs) Defines switch mechanisms and offers guidance on the LMA standard form switch provisions Provides a key points checklist for preparing a compounded RFR-based facilities agreement Gives an overview of the move away from LIBOR The Note concentrates on provisions in the LMA Multicurrency Term and Revolving Facilities Agreement that incorporates backward‑looking compounded rates and forward‑looking term rates with rate‑switch provisions (lookback without observation shift). It does not cover recommended form facilities that are built on, or revert to, Term RFRs,...
Key Planning resources are available in Lexis+® UK and are linked throughout the Planning materials, delivering practical commentary, legislation, rules and guidance for Planning practitioners. Please note that the titles mentioned are only accessible with the appropriate Lexis+® UK subscription(s). Butterworths Planning Law Service Prepared by No 5 Chambers alongside other prominent legal specialists, Butterworths Planning Law Service offers practical guidance and incisive commentary across all elements of Planning law in England and Wales. It also features time‑saving standard forms and precedents, together with a comprehensive library of relevant materials, including the latest government guidance. Who should use this resource? It is of general interest to Planning practitioners undertaking research in these areas, with a particular focus on case law......
This Tracker compiles examples of costs rulings where the court has either imposed an issues‑based costs order or declined to do so. Such an order is unusual. When one is made, it is essential that the terms can be measured with clarity, because solicitors face real challenges when identifying the costs that relate to each individual issue, and clear parameters help the assessment process and any detailed apportionment required. Court makes an issues-based costs order—examples The following decisions illustrate occasions on which an issues‑based costs order was made. The most recent judgment appears first, providing a current example of the approach. Judgment, citation and news analysis: Montres Breguet SA v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd [2022] EWHC 1895 ( Ch) — Consideration: The judge cited Pigot v Environment Agency [2020] EWHC 1444 ( Ch), emphasising that an issues‑based costs order is not warranted simply because a party did not...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision to accept commitments on 10 February 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline: The European Commission opened an Article 102 TFEU inquiry into Aspen, assessing whether it exploited a dominant position in various national markets by imposing excessive prices for the supply of off-patient cancer medicines ( AT.40394). Latest development On 10 February 2021, the Commission accepted Aspen’s commitments and, as a result, terminated its investigation. Aspen will cut prices across Europe for six cancer medicines by an average of about 73% (on average below the prices seen in 2012, ie before Aspen began raising them). These figures will act as the price cap for the next ten years and had already started to apply from October 2019. Aspen will secure the...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Case T-590/20 ARCHIVED—this case hub records the position as at the decision of 14 July 2020; it is no longer being updated. See timeline and commentary for more Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU probe into a cartel involving purchases on the ethylene merchant market ( AT.40410) Latest development On 14 July 2020, the Commission adopted an infringement decision after four companies settled and accepted their role in the cartel. Aggregate penalties of €260.443m were imposed. Fines per company were: Westlake—no penalty (immunity granted) Orbia—€22,367,000 (including a 45% leniency reduction and a 10% settlement discount) Clariant—€155,769,000 (including a 30% leniency reduction and a 10% settlement discount) Celanese—€82,307,000 (including a 20% leniency reduction and a 10% settlement discount) Parties Westlake Chemical (hereafter, Westlake), a US-based company, is a global...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 1 July 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline Case facts Outline The CMA pursued a Chapter I CA98 investigation, alleging that Spire Healthcare Limited, its parent Spire Healthcare Group plc, and seven ophthalmologists contravened UK competition law by participating in unlawful price fixing ( Case 50782–1). Latest developments On 1 July 2020, the CMA delivered its infringement decision, determining that Spire Healthcare Limited, its parent Spire Healthcare Group, and seven consultant ophthalmologists had violated the Chapter I prohibition by engaging in unlawful price fixing. The CMA levied a fine of £1.2m in total, which incorporated a 20% reduction for settlement. One consultant ophthalmologist obtained immunity through the CMA’s leniency programme. Parties Spire Healthcare Limited ......
ARCHIVED : This archived Practice Note summarises a number of key and/or illustrative cases relevant to freezing injunction applications, with particular focus on the period 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2024. It is not maintained and is for background information only. For illustrative decisions from 1 January 2025 onwards, see Practice Note: Freezing injunctions—illustrative decisions (2025). For general guidance and links to detailed content concerning freezing injunctions, see: Freezing injunctions—overview. Case details and analysis Court of Appeal Isabel dos Santos v Unitel S. A. [2024] EWCA Civ 1109 News Analysis: Good arguable case—no longer arguable in freezing order cases? ( Isabel dos Santos v Unitel) Judgment date: 30 September 2024 The Court of Appeal’s ruling in these proceedings addressed two central points relevant to applications for freezing injunctions. First, the Court of Appeal appeared to close the...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the 21 December 2020 decision date and is no longer maintained. See the timeline and commentary for more detail. Case facts Outline of the European Commission’s merger inquiry into the planned merger between Fiat Chrysler N. V. and Peugeot S. A. ( M.9730). The transaction entails horizontal overlaps in the light commercial vehicles market. Latest developments On 21 December 2020, the Commission approved the merger subject to commitments. To resolve its concerns, it accepted undertakings from the parties designed to enable entry and expansion, namely: Extending an existing cooperation agreement between PSA and Toyota Motor Europe for small light commercial vehicles, under which PSA builds the vehicle for sale by Toyota Motor Europe under the Toyota Motor Europe brand. Amending the ‘repair and maintenance’ agreements for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles between PSA, FCA and their...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This case hub reflects the position as at the decision date of 4 March 2024; it is not being maintained. See further timeline, related cases and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU investigation into Apple’s App Store rules and their effect on competition in music streaming ( AT.40437). Latest development On 4 March 2024, the Commission adopted an infringement decision and imposed a fine of more than €1.8bn for abuse of a dominant position in the market for distributing music streaming apps to i Phone and i Pad users (i OS users) via the App Store. The Commission concluded that Apple imposed restrictions on app developers that prevented them from informing i OS users about alternative, lower-priced music subscription services available outside the app. Parties Apple Inc ( Apple); Apple is a US based company. It designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and related...
This outlines ongoing and concluded director disqualification undertakings and orders made by the CMA since 2016. Ongoing cases seeking director disqualifications There are presently no ongoing cases seeking director disqualifications. Completed cases 2024 Prochlorpezarine tablets (50511-2) — Mr Pritesh Sonpal — Director disqualification order — Length: to be confirmed — CMA confirms it is no longer pursuing proceedings; asks High Court to dismiss the application—12/09/2024; Proceedings issued before the High Court—17/09/2022 — Case page Prochlorpezarine tablets (50511-2) — Mr Peter Butterfield — Director disqualification order — Length: to be confirmed — CMA confirms it is no longer pursuing proceedings; asks High Court to dismiss the application—12/09/2024; Proceedings issued before the High Court—17/09/2022 — Case page Prochlorpezarine tablets (50511-2) — Mr John Dawson — Director disqualification order — Length: to be confirmed — CMA confirms it is no longer pursuing...
This Practice Note reviews the position under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 ( CJJA 1982) where enforcement of a foreign judgment is pursued in the courts of England and Wales, and an issue arises as to whether the judgment debtor submitted to the foreign court’s jurisdiction in the circumstances presented. The pertinent provisions of CJJA 1982, s 33 are outlined, addressing situations in which steps taken by the debtor in the overseas proceedings will not be treated as a submission to that court’s authority, and clarifying the scope of any such non-submission. Further guidance is offered on the grounds upon which a defendant might nevertheless be held to have accepted the foreign court’s jurisdiction, including: voluntary submission, submission by advancing a counterclaim, submission through an appeal on the merits of the foreign judgment, or submission by...
ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and not maintained. It was originally prepared for Lexis Advance® Practical Guidance Hong Kong. Hong Kong is a special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China ( Mainland China). Under the one country, two systems framework, Hong Kong maintains its own patent regime, distinct from that of Mainland China. The Intellectual Property Department ( IPD) of the Hong Kong government manages the administration of patent applications, registrations and maintenance. There are two types of patent in Hong Kong: standard patents short-term patents The Paris Convention and the Patent Co-operation Treaty ( PCT) apply in Hong Kong by virtue of Mainland China’s membership. The Agreement on Trade- Related Aspects of Intellectual Property ( TRIPS) is implemented in Hong Kong through its World Trade Organisation ( WTO) membership. A short-term patent application may serve as a priority founding...
ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. It was originally prepared for Lexis Advance® Practical Guidance Hong Kong. Conducting a trade mark search Before filing an application to register a trade mark, it is sensible to conduct a search to see whether any identical or similar marks are already registered in Hong Kong, which assists in assessing the likelihood of successful registration. A trade mark search can prevent an applicant from incurring unnecessary application and official fees if refusal appears probable. After obtaining and reviewing the search results, the applicant may refine the mark or adopt a different mark to avoid similarity with existing registered trade marks, or to avoid objection due to inherent registrability. A trade mark search can be undertaken using the online Trade Mark Search system on the Intellectual Property Department’s website....
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
