The tying of one service or product to the supply of others including some situations where the supply of services are linked through the use of discounts. See also full-line forcing.

Construction analysis: This case concerned a typical construction dispute between dissatisfied homeowners and an unpaid builder. The homeowners argued that the building work was defective, while the builder argued that the work was merely incomplete. The dispute encompassed a range of legal issues which commonly arise in such disputes. The judgment therefore provides helpful insight into the ways in which the courts approach such matters as contract formation, agency and undisclosed principals, misrepresentation, ascertainment of contract terms, variation, repudiation and the quantification of damages, all in the challenging context of an informal, largely oral and multiply varied agreement between the parties. In summary, Her Honour Judge Sarah Watson, sitting in the Technology and Construction Court in Birmingham, held that the defendant builder, Mr Pattar, was not in breach and that the claimant homeowners had repudiated the agreement by failing to—(i) make payment to the defendant, and (ii) invite the defendant to resume his building work. The claim was dismissed and the defendant was awarded judgment on his counterclaim in the sum of £18,642. Written by Callum Monro Morrison, barrister, at Keating Chambers.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 31 October 2013; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline OFT Article 102 TFEU/Chapter II investigation into an alleged abuse of dominant position in relation to 'direct bunkering' services to HGV fleets (case number CE/9278–10) Latest developments On 31 October 2013, the OFT closed its investigation. The

There are two kinds of ‘burden’ in criminal proceedings: • the legal burden, and • the evidential burden The legal burden A party has the legal (sometimes called ‘the persuasive’) burden where the onus is on that party to prove a fact or issue in a case to the required standard of proof. The legal burden is generally on the prosecution (subject to certain exceptions as explained below). This means that where the defendant pleads not guilty, the prosecution have the burden of proving all the elements of the offence (eg the identity of the defendant, the nature of the act, the existence of any necessary knowledge or intent and the negating of any defences which are raised). It includes proving negative elements of an offence (eg lack of consent in a rape or assault case). It is for the jury or magistrates to determine whether the burden has been discharged. Whichever decision making tribunal is responsible for making this decision, it must be clear that it has applied the correct

Arbitration analysis: In this decision, the Enforcement Judge of the Paris Judicial Court (JEX) clarifies the scope of the statutory protection against attachment established by Article L. 153-1 of the French Monetary and Financial Code for assets held or managed in France by foreign central banks or monetary authorities. It also delineates the burden of proof borne by award creditors seeking judicial authorization to enforce against assets falling within the statutory exception to that protection. The Enforcement Judge held that a creditor seeking authorisation to attach assets held or managed by a foreign central bank must establish, at the time authorisation is sought, that the statutory exception to immunity from attachment applies. To do so, the creditor bears the burden of proving each of the two cumulative requirements: first, that the central bank holds or manages the assets for its own account; and second, that the assets form part of a pool of assets allocated to the central bank’s principal activity governed by private law. The judgment further confirms that this burden cannot be discharged through generalised assertions, evidence merely that the assets generated investment returns, or material obtained only after the attachment has been carried out. None of those elements, without more, establishes that the assets were allocated to the central bank’s principal private-law activity at the time authorisation was sought. The judgment is therefore of particular significance to enforcement practitioners. It confirms that post attachment discovery cannot cure an evidential deficiency existing when the application was made. Creditors must accordingly obtain sufficiently concrete evidence, before seeking enforcement measures in France, of both conditions. Produced in partnership with Raphaël Kaminsky and Anzhela Torosyan of Teynier Pic.

This Practice Note considers the two-stage statutory burden of proof test which applies to all prohibited conduct (ie discrimination) and equality of terms (ie equal pay) claims under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010), but not to criminal offences. The statutory burden of proof test EqA 2010 prescribes a two-stage process for dealing with the burden of proof. It applies to any proceedings relating to a contravention of EqA 2010, including a breach of an equality clause or rule. The process does not apply to proceedings for any criminal offence under EqA 2010. The burden of proof does not apply when assessing whether an exercise fulfils the statutory criteria of being a job evaluation study for the purpose of an equal pay claim because the burden of proof only applies when a prima facie case on all aspects of a claim has been established (either on the evidence or because the basic facts are not in dispute), ie when there is a prima facie case that there has been a breach of an equality clause. Overview

Balance of probabilities The claimant must prove that, on the balance of probabilities, the defendant has been negligent or has breached their statutory duties. Proof on the balance of probabilities means proof that it is more likely than not. If the claimant’s evidence is equally consistent with the presence or absence of negligence or breach of the duty then the claim will fail. If the defendant has been convicted of an offence arising out of the alleged negligent act, this will create a rebuttable presumption that they committed that offence. Under section 11 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968, the defendant is taken to have committed the offence unless the contrary is proved. It is then for the defendant to prove that, on the balance

Personal Injury analysis: Andrew Peters, legal manager at Bott & Co considers the High Court’s decision in Atkinson v South Tees Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. The court held that the claimant’s burden of proof was made out in relation to the first operation for Dupuytren’s contracture but not the second.

Burglary In most cases burglary is an either-way offence and so it can be tried in the magistrates' court or the Crown Court. Burglary triable only on indictment Under the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (MCA 1980), there are some categories of burglary that can only be tried on the Crown Court: • aggravated burglary (where a burglary is committed with a firearm or imitation firearm, or any weapon or explosive) • burglary that involves the commission of, or the intention to commit, an indictable only offence • burglary of a dwelling house where a person is subject to violence or the threat of violence, and • where the ‘three strike rule’ applies—the burglary was a domestic burglary, the accused is 18 or over and at the date of the offence had previously been convicted on two separate occasions of domestic burglary committed after 30 November 1999 Burglary of a dwelling is a distinct offence from burglary of any other type of building, eg a commercial building. The elements of the offence of burglary The prosecution must prove: • the

A person is guilty of burglary if he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to commit a specified offence or, having made such entry, he steals or attempts to steal anything in that building or part or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm (Theft Act 1968, s 9).

To [name of recipient(s) of letter] 1 [ Direction as to place of burial and tombstone 1.1 I wish my body to be buried in my family grave in the [cemetery

1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Burkina Faso merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Burkina Faso? Law No. 016-2017/AN on the Organization of Competition in Burkina Faso was passed on 27 April 2017 (Competition Law) and replaced the previous Act. The Competition Law harmonised the relationship between the national and regional competition authorities and increased the penalties for contravention of the competition laws. The National Commission of Competition and Consumption (Commission Nationale de la Concurrence et de la Consommation) (NCCC) is the regulatory authority in Burkina Faso and is responsible for implementing the Competition Law. There are no recent developments in the Burkina Faso merger control regime or any updates/developments planned in the coming year to our knowledge. There are also no 'hot' merger control issues in Burkina Faso. Burkina Faso is a member of the West African Economic and Monetary Union (Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine) (WAEMU) and is subject to the competition rules and regulations of