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
This Practice Note outlines the insolvency regime brought in by the Technical and Further Education Act 2017 ( TAFEA 2017), the Further Education Bodies ( Insolvency) Regulations 2019 ( FEBR 2019), SI 2019/138, and the Education Administration Rules 2018 ( EAR 2018), SI 2018/1135, which took effect on 31 January 2019. TAFEA 2017 establishes the structure of an insolvency framework applying to further education and sixth form colleges in England and Wales. It also introduces a special administration regime designed to protect the interests of learners where a college becomes insolvent. Background The Further and Higher Education Act 1992 ( FHEA 1992) created a new further education sector providing full-time education for 16–18 year olds and introduced a distinct corporate legal entity, the ‘further education corporation’. The Association of Colleges reports that over 95% of institutions in the sector are either further education...
Scope of this Practice Note This Practice Note addresses matters linked to technology used to help firms comply with their regulatory duties—often referred to as ‘regtech’. It reviews how the Financial Conduct Authority ( FCA) and the Bank of England ( Bo E) (including the Prudential Regulation Authority ( PRA)) engage with regtech, highlights industry activity, and records both the proposal and subsequent withdrawal of an FCA ‘ Robo Handbook’. It examines these facets of what has come to be known as ‘regtech’: what is regtech? the FCA’s approach FCA Tech Sprints digital sandbox other regulator-side developments towards a Robo Handbook industry-side developments other initiatives What is regtech? Regtech is a broad label for the use of technology to help firms discharge regulatory requirements more efficiently and effectively than legacy systems allow—and, at times, for the use of...
This archived Practice Note captured the principal developments anticipated to influence the corporate governance regime in 2019. It has not been updated since 2019. For developments from January 2020 onwards, see Practice Note: Corporate governance horizon scanning—2020 and beyond. Please send suggestions for topics we might track to Knowhow Lawyers Corporate@lexisnexis.co.uk... Mini-index January 2019 February 2019 March 2019 April 2019 June 2019 July 2019 September 2019 October 2019 No specific date in 2019 confirmed 2020 and beyond January 2019 From 1 January 2019, the revised UK Corporate Governance Code ( UKCG Code) applies to premium listed companies with accounting periods beginning on or after that date. The update stems from the government’s response to the Green Paper Consultation on Corporate Governance Reform, together with the Hampton- Alexander Review and the Parker Review. Headline changes address...
The following records and condenses finalised inquiries undertaken by the European Ombudsman linked to DG Competition, as well as competition law matters since 2014. 2025 Case Type of complaint Issues Relevant Commission investigation or decision Developments Case 1880/2025/ MAS Access to documents This matter related to a bid for public access to a report that set out an assessment of the ‘ Do No Significant Harm’ principle for a project under a State aid inquiry Case SA.101151 30/09/2025—the Ombudsman identified no maladministration and closed the file Decision Case 275/2024/ NH Access to documents This case involved a request for public access to papers concerning a State aid investigation into railway services in Portugal Unknown 20/01/2025—the Ombudsman decided that no further enquiries were warranted and closed the case Decision Case 275/2024/ NH Access to documents This case concerned a plea for public access to...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 17 December 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission probe under Article 101 TFEU into vertical limits on online advertising and cross-border sales attributed to Guess ( Case AT.40428). Latest developments On 17 December 2018, the Commission adopted an infringement decision against Asus, levying €39.821m (following an ‘informal settlement’) for restraining retailers’ online advertising and blocking cross-border sales to consumers in other Member States (‘geo-blocking’), in breach of Article 101 TFEU. Parties Guess is a United States-based clothing brand and retailer that designs, distributes and licences apparel and accessories under several trade marks, including “ GUESS?” and “ MARCIANO”. In the EEA, Guess operates a selective distribution...
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Cases T‑837/19, T‑64/20, T‑58/20 and T‑69/20 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 18 July 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission review of a merger concerning Vodafone’s intended acquisition of Liberty Global’s businesses in Germany, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Romania ( Case M.8864). The deal gives rise to concerns in markets for telecommunications services, especially in the Czech Republic and Germany. Latest developments On 18 July 2019, the Commission granted conditional approval, subject to commitments. It accepted from Vodafone a package of remedies designed to address its competition concerns. Parties Vodafone is a UK-based telecommunications operator. It is primarily engaged in running mobile telecommunication networks and in supplying mobile telecommunication services, including mobile voice, messaging and data services. Certain...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 7 December 2018; it is no longer maintained or updated. See further, timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU inquiry into the electricity interconnector linking Western Denmark and Germany, operated by Tenne T (case number AT.40461). Latest development On 7 December 2018, the Commission accepted commitments from Tenne T under Article 9. These commitments, which will apply for nine years, provide that: Tenne T will offer to the market the maximum capacity consistent with the safe operation of the interconnector between Western Denmark and Germany and, in any case, will ensure a minimum hourly capacity of 1 300 megawatts on the interconnector (approximately 75% of its technical capacity); this minimum guaranteed hourly capacity will be achieved following an...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 6 December 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court against the European Commission’s decision finding an infringement and imposing penalties on, amongst others, Coveris Rigid France ( Coveris), for taking part in a cartel concerning retail food packaging trays in France. Outcome On 6 December 2018, the General Court ruled and rejected Coveris’ argument that liability for a €4.8m penalty should pass to the purchaser of assets sold by its parent group from the business implicated in the cartel; the Court held Coveris remained responsible. Parties Applicant: Coveris Rigid France Defendant: European Commission Coveris manufactures flexible packaging and supplies varied packaging...
ARCHIVED: This content was published in 2018 and is not maintained. This Market Standards Trend Report reviews current market practices and developments arising from the FTSE 350 annual general meeting ( AGM) season for 2018......
CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Case T-583/20 ARCHIVED—this case hub records the position as at the decision of 12 April 2019 and is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline of the European Commission’s merger probe into Nidec’s proposed acquisition of Embraco, Whirlpool’s compressor business ( Case M.8947). The deal features horizontal overlaps in the markets for refrigeration compressors. Latest developments On 12 April 2019, the Commission conditionally approved the transaction, subject to commitments. The commitments comprised a remedies package offered by Nidec including: divestment of its refrigeration compressor business covering household and light commercial applications; and a commitment to provide significant funding to the purchaser of the divested business for future investments in the facilities. Parties Nidec Corporation is a Japan-based company engaged in the engineering, manufacture, and distribution of a wide range of electric motors and motor...
HMRC's online Trust Registration Service ( TRS) HMRC’s online Trust Registration Service ( TRS) was created to give effect to the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds ( Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 ( MLR 2017), SI 2017/692, while advancing HMRC’s digital agenda and wider tax transparency. Subsequent enhancements were made in response to additional obligations from the fifth EU anti-money laundering directive, Directive ( EU) 2018/843 (5MLD), implemented via the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing ( Amendment) ( EU Exit) Regulations 2020 ( MLR 2020), SI 2020/991. Although estates were not initially within MLR 2017, SI 2017/692, HMRC launched the online ERS alongside the TRS to capture complex estates’ income tax and capital gains tax ( CGT) reporting. In practice, the TRS and ERS arrived within the same online platform, though it remains convenient to describe them...
What is a legal opinion and when are they given? A legal opinion is a formal statement setting out a considered view on points of law relevant to a transaction. As outlined below, such opinions usually address several different facets of the transaction at hand, and the breadth and depth of the opinion will differ on a case-by-case basis. This Practice Note concentrates on opinions concerning matters of English law. Transactions that involve parties or assets situated in different locations will commonly require multiple legal opinions, each dealing with issues pertinent to the relevant jurisdiction. Historically, English lawyers have given formal legal opinions only to their own clients and have been notably hesitant to issue opinions for the benefit of third parties, particularly where that third party is represented by English counsel. This position reflects the view that another party should...
ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note is no longer updated and is supplied solely for background reference and context. Additionally, certain links may not lead you to the provisions as they stood when the guidance in this Practice Note was issued and published. For details of earlier and/or later changes to the CPR, refer to: CPR Updates—overview and Procedure Rule Committee minutes—overview. This Practice Note describes the amendments to Practice Directions in the 101st Making Document, dated 7 November 2018. Those amendments introduce a video hearing pilot under CPR PD 51V, applying to applications to set aside default judgments entered under CPR 12 by the County Court for a specified sum of money......
FORTHCOMING CHANGE : The Trusts and Succession ( Scotland) Act 2024 obtained Royal Assent on 30 January 2024, signalling the first major review of Scottish trusts law in over a century, since the foundational Trusts ( Scotland) Act 1921. The trusts-related provisions will only take effect once Scottish Ministers bring forward the necessary secondary legislation, whereas certain measures on succession commenced on 30 April 2024. Key updates aimed at modernising the framework are summarised in News Analysis: Trusts and Succession ( Scotland) Bill passed. Practice Notes covering Scottish trusts and succession will be updated further to reflect this new legislation... Appointment as trustee in Will or deed In practice, trustees are appointed (or nominated) in the relevant deed of trust. For Will trusts (or mortis causa settlements), the trust deed is, or is derived from, the deceased’s Will. An appointment only takes effect once the nominee...
Key cases on schemes of arrangement This Practice Note summarises selected authorities and linked materials on schemes of arrangement. Matters are grouped by topic and cover: Class issues Jurisdiction/sufficient connection issues Valuation issues Scheme meeting/voting and cram-down Convening hearing/sanction hearing issues Class issues Re SWS Holdings Ltd [2025] EWHC 2690 ( Ch) (sanction) — 9 October 2025. Parallel contract: the Tap Bonds (which would have sat in Class A4) were issued after the scheme meetings and so were not caught by the schemes. However, the beneficial owners directed the security trustee to execute an amendment agreement so their terms were adjusted as if bound by the SWS Scheme (see [9]–[10]). Relevant content: Practice Note: Part 26 scheme deal debrief— SWS Holdings Limited and Greensands Financing Plc (part of the Southern Water group). Re SWS Holdings Ltd [2025] EWHC 2318 ( Ch) (convening) — 2 September 2025. To avoid a...
Gross negligence manslaughter Gross negligence manslaughter is a common law offence arising where an individual’s failings meet strict criteria. It is committed when the offender: owes the victim a duty of care and breaches that duty and that breach leads to the victim’s death and, given the risk involved, their behaviour is so seriously deficient that it amounts to a criminal act or omission For guidance on manslaughter by gross negligence, see Practice Note: Involuntary manslaughter. Only a person can commit gross negligence manslaughter; it should not be mistaken for manslaughter attributable to a company, which is a statutory offence under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. For information on corporate manslaughter, see: Corporate manslaughter—overview and Practice Note: Corporate manslaughter—an introductory guide. Sentencing of organisations for corporate manslaughter is covered by the Crown Court...
This Practice Note offers guidance on the overall conduct of an arbitration under the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre ( HKIAC) Administered Arbitration Rules 2018 (the 2018 HKIAC Rules; HKIAC 2018). As outlined in Practice Note: HKIAC (2018)—the HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules—application and key features, the 2018 HKIAC Rules generally govern HKIAC arbitrations begun on or after 1 November 2018, unless the parties agree otherwise; for arbitrations initiated before 1 November 2018, the 2013 HKIAC Rules will generally apply, again subject to party agreement. For an introduction to the HKIAC and its structure, see Practice Note: HKIAC—background to and structure of the institution. For guidance on commencing and answering proceedings, see Practice Notes: HKIAC (2018)—starting an arbitration and HKIAC (2018)—responding to a HKIAC arbitration. The overall approach to procedure in a HKIAC arbitration Each arbitration is unique, and a chief attraction of this form of...
This Practice Note offers an overview of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre ( HKIAC) Administered Arbitration Rules 2018 (the 2018 HKIAC Rules; HKIAC 2018). As outlined in more detail below, the 2018 HKIAC Rules generally apply to HKIAC arbitrations commenced on or after 1 November 2018, unless the parties have agreed otherwise. For background on the HKIAC and its composition, see Practice Note: HKIAC—background to and structure of the institution. The HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules 2018—scope of application ( HKIAC 2018, art 1) Absent a different party agreement, the 2018 HKIAC Rules govern all arbitrations where the Notice of Arbitration is filed on or after 1 November 2018 and the arbitration agreement (made either before or after a dispute arises): states that the 2018 HKIAC Rules apply; or provides for arbitration ‘administered by HKIAC’ or wording to similar effect ( HKIAC 2018, arts 1.4 and...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment date of 18 October 2018; it is no longer being maintained. NOTE— Appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 823/18 Commission v GEA Group See further: timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court against the amended European Commission decision that found an infringement and levied fines on GEA for its role in the heat stabilisers cartel ( AT.38589). Outcome On 18 October 2018, the General Court delivered its judgment, by which it annulled the amended Commission decision in full. Parties Applicant: GEA Group AG ( GEA), a German provider of process technology to the food sector and a broad spectrum of other industries. Defendant: European Commission Background By decision of 11 November 2009 (the 2009 Commission Decision), the Commission imposed fines on, amongst others, Aachener Chemische Werke...
This Practice Note explores following and tracing and addresses several of the more challenging facets of the exercise, including tracing through chains of transactions, the idea of ‘backwards tracing’, cherry-picking in tracing (mixed substitutions), and tracing in relation to digital assets. ‘ Following’ and ‘tracing’ are not causes of action in themselves, but evidential techniques for locating and identifying assets against which a claim might be brought. See Practice Note: Proprietary remedies—following and tracing. While following and tracing can sometimes be relatively simple, there are circumstances when they are especially difficult both conceptually and evidentially. A number of these issues are set out below. Tracing and chains of transactions (inference in tracing gaps) Where funds are pursued through multiple bank accounts across separate transactions, problems can arise in proving that the money that left one account is the same money ultimately sitting in a...
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
