ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû

View the related checklists about Causation

What to think about before bringing a private competition action—checklist

What to think about before bringing a private competition action—checklist Is there an actionable claim? Note: private competition actions remain largely regulated by national law and procedural and substantive rules across the EU may vary significantly, therefore assessments in individual jurisdictions will need to be made when planning competition litigation. Possible causes of action • Consider if there is an infringement of UK competition law (or EU competition law prior to the end of the Brexit transition period). ◦ Consider whether the loss suffered can be attributed to an agreement or concerted action between undertakings, especially competing undertakings (see further, The prohibition on restrictive agreements). ◦ Consider whether the loss might have been caused by an entity that is arguably dominant typically with a large share of a relevant market, and could be said to have abused its dominance contrary to Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998 (and/or Article 102 TFEU if prior to the end of the Brexit transition period) (see further, The prohibition on abuse of dominance)....

View the related practice notes about Causation

Causation and intervening acts in criminal cases

Criminal offences are generally divided into two categories: •conduct crimes, and •result crimesA conduct crime is a crime where only the forbidden conduct needs to be proved. For example, an accused is guilty of dangerous driving if they drove a motor vehicle dangerously on a road or other public place. There is no requirement to prove harmful consequences such as injury to another.A result crime is a crime which causes or results in specified consequences. For example, murder requires proof that someone is killed. For any result crime the prosecution must establish:•a factual link between the conduct of the accused and the result they are alleged to have caused (factual causation), and•a sufficient cause in law between the conduct of the accused and the prohibited consequences (legal causation)Factual causation is also known as ‘but for’ causation because it must be established that the result would not have occurred but for the actions of the accused. If factual causation cannot be established the prosecution will fail. For example, in R v...

Remedies for connected lender liability in consumer credit

Remedies for connected lender liability in consumer credit This Practice Note examines a purchaser’s causes of action and remedies where the credit in a supplier-purchaser agreement is financed by a third party. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974) provides that in certain instances where there is a connection between the supplier of goods and services and the creditor, the borrower will be able to seek a remedy against the creditor under CCA 1974, s 75 where the supplier has made a misrepresentation or is in breach of contract. This Practice Note looks at the main requirements of section 75 and the circumstances in which it might be applied when purchasing goods or services with a credit card. Overview Under a contract for the sale or supply of goods or services as between a supplier and purchaser, the purchaser’s causes of action and remedies are well known. However, what is the position where the transaction is financed by a third-party creditor? In certain debtor-creditor-supplier (or DCS) relationships, a consumer...

View the related precedents about Causation

Letter of claim for negligently performed surgery

Letter of claim for negligently performed surgery Dear [insert organisation name] Letter of Claim [insert claimant’s name] v [insert defendant’s name] We have been instructed to act on behalf of [insert claimant’s name] in relation to treatment carried out/care provided at [insert name of defendant hospital] by [insert name(s) of surgeon(s) if known] on or around [insert date(s)]. Please let us know if you do not believe that you are the appropriate defendant or if you are aware of any other potential defendants. This letter is sent pursuant to the Pre-Action Protocol for the Resolution of Clinical Disputes. You should acknowledge receipt of this letter in writing and identify who will be dealing with this matter within 14 days. Failure to acknowledge receipt may result in the Claimant issuing proceedings without further reference to you. Further within four months of receipt of this letter you should provide a Letter of Response setting out whether the claim is admitted or denied and provide copies of any...

Letter of instruction to single joint expert—employment tribunal proceedings

Letter of instruction to single joint expert—employment tribunal proceedings STOP PRESS: The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, SI 2024/1155 (ET Rules 2024) in force from 6 January 2025, replace the ET Rules 2013 set out in Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/1237 from that date. The Employment Tribunals (Procedure Rules) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2024, SI 2024/1156, also in force 6 January 2025, primarily amend the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/1237 to facilitate the coming into force of the ET Rules 2024. Presidential Guidance and Practice Directions will be amended to reflect the new rules in due course. For a destination table showing how the ET Rules 2024 correspond to the ET Rules 2013, and incorporating notes on the changes, see Practice Note: Employment tribunal rules of procedure 2024—destination table. This Practice Note will be updated in light of the ET Rules 2024 as soon as possible. Private...

View the related News about Causation

Employment weekly highlights—1 May 2025

This edition of Employment weekly highlights includes: (1) a new Employment Rights Bill factsheet on changes to the statutory sick pay structure, (2) the EHRC interim update on the practical implications of For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers Supreme Court decision, and confirmation that an updated EHRC Code of Practice is expected in summer, (3) analysis by Annie Davis of Old Square Chambers of Court of Appeal guidance on Article 14 ECHR challenges to employment legislation, (4) examination by the EAT of the benchmark for costs orders in discrimination claims, (5) an EAT judgment addressing the question of relevance when determining applications for information and disclosure of documents, (6) an EAT decision that acquiescence over businesses getting struck-off can be unreasonable conduct for the purposes of a costs order, (7) our new Practice Note on employers’ obligations to manage workplace temperature, (8) dates for your diary, and (9) other news items of interest to employment practitioners.

‘Half the truth is often a great lie’—Benjamin Franklin (Expert Tooling and Automation Ltd v Engie Power Ltd)

Commercial analysis: A case brought to the Court of Appeal challenging the High Court’s decision on the scope of fiduciary duty, informed consent and dishonesty. The court clarified that agents must fully disclose commissions (including the amount and method of funding) to avoid breaching fiduciary duties. Engie Power could only be liable as an accessory if dishonest and the court found the limitation period began when commission was paid, not when the contract was signed. The appeal was allowed in part. Written by Alexander Whatley, barrister at 3PB Chambers.