The Land Charges Act 1972 (LCA 1972) provides for HM Land Registry to maintain: • a register of land charges • a register of pending land actions and pending actions in bankruptcy • a register of writs and orders affecting land and writs and orders in bankruptcy These registers are entirely separate to the register for substantive title registration and are maintained by the Land Charges Department of HM Land Registry (based at its office in Plymouth). This Practice Note looks at the circumstances in which a bankruptcy search should be made in the above registers in respect of an individual or individuals. It does not deal with searches which may be required to establish the solvency or otherwise of a company; these are dealt with in Practice Notes: Pre-contract searches, Pre-completion searches and Quick guide to property insolvency. For our content on land charges and the land charges register, see Practice Note: Land charges under the Land Charges Act 1972—registration and purpose. LCA 1972 also made provision for registers

A cartel is an anti-competitive agreement, anti-competitive concerted practice, or anti-competitive arrangement by competitors to fix prices, make rigged bids (collusive tenders), establish output restrictions or quotas, or share or divide markets by allocating customers, suppliers, territories, or lines of commerce.

Established by the Enterprise Act 2002, s 188, the cartel offence provides for individual criminal sanctions for serious anti-competitive behaviour in the UK.

Agreements and/or concerted practices between two or more competing undertakings which coordinate their behaviour in order to influence the competitive structure of the market to their own advantage, by engaging in different anti-competitive practices, such as, fixing prices, allocating customers, sharing markets.

Cartels are considered to be the most pernicious anti-competitive practices under Article 101 TFEU. As such, they are subject to a specific legal regime which includes (amongst other things) particular procedural tools (eg leniency programme and settlements). What is a cartel? Cartels are a major concern for competition authorities. However, Article 101 TFEU does not provide a definition of cartels, nor does it make explicit mention of them. Over time, the case law of the EU courts and the decisional practices of the Commission have attempted to provide greater clarity on the notion of what a cartel is and to identify the constitutive elements of a cartel violation. Form of a cartel—agreement and concerted practices Article 101 TFEU draws a distinction between: • agreements between undertakings, and • concerted practices Agreement The notion of an agreement implies that the parties adhere to a common plan that limits or is likely to limit their individual commercial conduct by determining how they will act or abstain from acting in the market. The form of the agreement matters

Law360, London: The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) ruled on 9 February 2026 that a Carter-Ruck partner can in principle recover costs from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) after she was cleared of disciplinary charges linked to the OneCoin cryptocurrency scam, but said that the High Court should decide how much.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 28 February 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline National reference from the Portuguese Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Lisbon Court of Appeal) to the Court of Justice requesting a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU seeking to clarify (amongst other things) whether a professional body's rules (as contained within a regulation and relating, in particular, to a system of compulsory training for chartered accountants) is compatible under Article 101 TFEU. On 28 February 2013, the Court of Justice ruled that the regulation in question must be regarded as a ‘decision of an association of undertakings’ within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU (even where the rules it prescribes do not have any direct effect on the economic activity of the members of that professional association) and one that triggers the Article 101(1) TFEU prohibition where it eliminates competition on a substantial

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgments of 4 March 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related/similar cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 10/18 P Marine Harvest v Commission—appeal to the Court of Justice against the judgment of the General Court dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision fining Marine Harvest for the failure to notify its acquisition of control over Morpol and failure to comply with the standstill obligation. Latest development On 4 March 2020, the Court of Justice issued its judgment, dismissing the appeal and upholding the Commission’s decision. Parties Applicant: Marine Harvest. Defendant: European Commission Marine Harvest (now called Mowi), is a Norwegian seafood company which produces farmed salmon, white halibut and various other seafood products. It has salmon farming and primary processing activities in Norway, Chile, Scotland, Canada, Ireland and the Faroe Islands. Morpol was a Norwegian-based producer and processor of salmon. It had salmon farming and primary processing activities

CASE HUB (date of judgment—07/09/2016) See further: timeline, commentary and related/similar cases. Case facts ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 7 September 2016; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeal brought by Pilkington group companies against the judgment of the General Court upholding the Commission decision of 12 November 2008 finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement and imposing a fine of €370m on Pilkington for its alleged participation in a market sharing and price-fixing cartel (characterised as a 'single and continuous infringement') concerning the supply of car glass in the EEA between 1998 and 2003 ('Car glass cartel'). On 7 September 2016, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal in its entirety and thus confirmed the judgment of the General Court and the fine imposed by the Commission (at the time, one of the largest individual fines imposed for cartel activity). In particular, the Court of Justice confirmed that the Commission had used the correct exchange rate in

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 28 July 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline National reference from the Hungarian Fővárosi Ítélőtábla to the Court of Justice requesting a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU seeking to clarify whether claims in restitution on the ground of unjust enrichment come within the head of jurisdiction under Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (Brussels Regulation) relating to ‘tort, delict or quasi-delict’ (taken together, ‘non-contractual liability’). On 28 July 2016, the Court of Justice ruled that an action for recovery of 'sums not due' on the ground of unjust enrichment (which the case at hand, has its origin in the repayment of a fine imposed in competition law proceedings) does not fall within the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning the Brussels Regulation—confirming that the Brussels Regulation does not apply because the matter in question arises from a purely 'administrative matter'. The

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 12 May 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Action brought by the Commission against Greece for non-compliance with the Commission decision of 7 December 2011 which found that compensation totalling €425m paid by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) to farmers for damage that had occurred in 2008 as a result of adverse weather conditions constituted illegal State aid (SA.28864) Latest developments On 12 May 2021, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it ruled that Greece, by failing to take (within the prescribed period) all necessary measures to recover the illegal aid, and by failing to inform the Commission (within the prescribed period) of the measures taken to comply with that Commission’s decision, breached its obligations under Article 288 TFEU and relevant provisions of the Commission’s decision. Parties Appellant:• European Commission (the Commission)Respondent: • Greece Background Background In 2009, the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation

CASE HUB (date of judgment—14/11/2017) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 14 November 2017; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court annulling only in part (as it relates to British Airways) the Commission decision of 9 November 2010 which found a single and continuous infringement (of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 EEA Agreement and Article 8 Agreement between the European Community and Swiss Confederation on Air transport) and imposed fines totalling €799.45m on 11 air carriers (including British Airways—BA) active in the supply of international air cargo services for their alleged participation in global cartel for airfreight services ('Air cargo cartel'). Unlike the other applicant airlines for whom the Commission's decision was annulled in its entirety (on account of inconsistencies in the decision that infringed the addressees' rights of defence and prevented the General Court from exercising its power of review), the General Court only annulled the parts