"LexisPSL and the other Lexis solutions support our business in exactly the way we want. They enable us to quickly turn around work and deliver the best possible service to our clients."
SBP Law
Access all documents on Intention
A person directly intends those consequences which he desires to bring about by his acts, whether or not they will be likely to follow; a person obliquely intends those consequences which are virtually certain to result from his acts and which he knows are virtually certain so to result.
“Intention†is an element of many criminal offences, but it does not have a consistent meaning. There is no difficulty in cases where the defendant desires or wants to bring about a consequence by his acts; in such a case he directly intends that consequence, and how likely it is to occur is irrelevant. Where, however, the defendant may not have desired the consequence but may have foreseen it as a by-product of his action, he may be found to have intended that consequence, but only (it appears) if that result was a virtually certain consequence of his acts and he knew this to be so.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.
For our full legal glossary and more legal research sources, register for a free Lexis+ trial
Key issues to consider on receipt of an adjudicator’s decision—checklist Produced in association with 4 Pump Court This Checklist sets out the main issues you need to consider on receiving an adjudicator’s decision. The main issues There are really three main issues that should be considered at the outset: • are there any errors in the decision that might be corrected under the slip rule? • is the result enforceable? • is the result acceptable or is a final determination needed and, if so, can this be done by Part 8 proceedings? Enforceability Issues It is important to consider whether the decision is enforceable, or whether it may be challenged. Note that there are limited grounds for challenging an adjudicator’s decision—see Practice Note: Resisting enforcement of an adjudication decision. Consideration Assistance Has the decision been delivered within the permitted time? See Practice Notes: Adjudication decision and The adjudicator's powers, directions and duties Has the adjudicator decided any matters for which they did not have jurisdiction? See Practice Note: The...
Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD)—timeline [Archived] Archived:This timeline has been archived. For developments from January 2024 onwards, see EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive—timeline if they relate to the EU BRRD, or UK bank recovery and resolution regime—timeline if they relate to the UK bank recovery and resolution regime, For further guidance on the EU BRRD, see Practice Note: Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD)—essentials. For further guidance on the UK bank recovery and resolution regime, see Practice Note: The UK bank recovery and resolution regime. Date Source Document Description 20 December 2023 European Banking Authority The EBA publishes amendments to disclosures and reporting on MREL and TLAC The European Banking Authority (EBA) has published its final draft implementing technical standards (ITS) on amendments to disclosure and reporting of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) and the total loss absorbency requirement (TLAC). The amendments reflect the new requirement to deduct investments in eligible liabilities instruments of entities belonging to the same resolution group, the...
Discover our 198 Checklists on Intention
Intention refers to the outcome sought by the defendant. Offences may be described as either ones of ‘basic intent’ or of ‘specific intent’. The Court of Appeal has described this distinction as ‘elusive’. The Court nevertheless provided the following definition of specific intent:‘Crimes of specific intent are those where the offence requires proof of purpose or consequence, which are not confined to, but amongst which are included, those where the purpose goes beyond the actus reus (sometimes referred to as cases of “ulterior intentâ€).’The Court also approved the reasoning that:‘[A] distinction is to be made between (i) intention as applied to acts considered in relation to their purposes and (ii) intention as applied to acts apart from their purposes. A general intent attending the commission of an act is, in some cases, the only intent required to constitute the crime while, in others, there must be, in addition to that general intent, a specific intent attending the purpose for the commission of the act.’Put simply, offences of specific intent require...
IntoxicationGeneral defences are those which arise from specific characteristics of the defendant or the circumstances of the offence which mean that the prosecution cannot prove all the elements of the offence. The investigating officer is under a duty to investigate crime impartially and fairly and so evidence supporting a defence should be collected and retained in the same way as evidence of the offence. Some offences are subject to specific statutory defences but the general defences should be considered in every case.Strictly speaking, intoxication, whether voluntary or involuntary is not defence to a crime per se.Specific intentWhere an offence requires specific criminal intent, voluntary intoxication may be sufficient to show that the accused could not have formed the requisite intent to commit the offence. The specific criminal intent required is that of bringing about a particular consequence at the time of the criminal action. If the accused was so drunk that they could not form a specific intention to bring about a particular consequence, then they would have a defence...
Discover our 4476 Practice Notes on Intention
Letter serving application in Form A on mortgagee in financial proceedings [insert mortgagee name] [insert mortgagee address] Dear [insert organisation name] Our client: [insert client’s name] [Property OR Land] address: [insert address of property or land] [ [Property OR Land] title number: [insert title number]] Your reference: [insert reference number] We represent [insert client’s name] in divorce and financial proceedings. [client's name]’s [former] [husband OR wife], [insert name], [is represented by [insert name and address of other party’s solicitors] OR acts in person]. We understand that you have a charge secured against the above detailed [property OR land], which forms part of the matrimonial assets. We confirm that our client has instructed us to make an application to the court for a financial order, including for an order in relation to the [property OR land] detailed above. We enclose a copy of the
Board minutes—private M&A—share purchase—completion—target Company number: [insert company number] [insert company name] [LIMITED OR PLC] Minutes of a meeting of the board of directors (the Meeting) of [insert company name] [Limited OR PLC] (the Company) Held at [insert place of meeting] Held on [insert day, month and year of meeting] at [insert time of meeting][am OR pm] Present: [Insert names of the director(s) physically present][[Insert names of any directors present by telephone as permitted by the Company’s articles of association] (by telephone)] [[Insert names of any directors present by other means permitted by the Company’s articles of association] (by [insert other means]] [ In attendance: ] [[Insert name of anyone in attendance, who does not count towards the quorum for the Meeting (eg the company secretary, any legal advisers)]] [ Apologies: ] [[Insert names of any directors who are unable to attend the Meeting]] 1 Chair, notice and quorum [insert name] was appointed Chair of the Meeting. The Chair reported that due...
Dive into our 552 Precedents related to Intention
How does the decision of Herefordshire Council v Rohde [2016] UKUT 39 (LC) clarify how a local authority's declaration as to whether a property is a house in multiple occupation (HMO) is challenged? Under section 255 of the Housing Act 2004 (HA 2004), a local authority (LA) is provided with a power to make a house in multiple occupation (HMO) order. The tests for establishing whether a property is a HMO or not is provided by HA 2004, s 254, however, where a property does not fulfil the tests contained within ss 254(2), 254(3), 254(4) or 254(5), then the LA retains a power to declare the property to be an HMO, provided they reasonably believe that the property has 'significant use' as an HMO (HA 2004, s260). For more information of the classification of HMOs, please see our Practice Note: Houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). The designation of a property as a HMO, as was the case in Herefordshire Council v Rohde [2016] UKUT 39 (LC) (Rohde), may be...
What key issues should be considered where customer (C) has a direct relationship with supplier (A) (who works with nominated supplier (B) on C's behalf), if C wishes to implement a direct rebate scheme with B? The nature of the legal relationships Its important to be clear on the nature of the legal relationships between each of supplier A, supplier B and customer C. It is stated that customer C and supplier A have a direct contractual relationship between them. It will be necessary to review the terms of that contract, in order to identify if the proposed course of action will be in breach of the specific terms of the agreement, or otherwise cause a conflict or ambiguity leading to a commercial risk. It is stated that ‘A works with another nominated supplier B on our behalf’. ‘On our behalf’ indicates the possibility that supplier A may be acting in some capacity as an agent of C in its dealings with supplier B. Agency is a relationship under which...
See the 1590 Q&As about Intention
This week’s edition of IP weekly highlights includes: a hand-picked summary of news analysis, updates and new content from the world of IP. These highlights focus on the key rights of copyright and associated rights, database rights, trade marks and passing off, designs, and patents, as well as covering issues relating to confidential information, know-how R&D and IP disputes all mainly from a UK and European perspective.
This week's edition of Life Sciences weekly highlights includes an MLex analysis of the interplay between the EU AI Act and medical device regulations and an analysis by Herbert Smith Freehills of two recent judgments that demonstrate the difficulties in determining ownership of innovation and the need for careful drafting of collaboration and service agreements. Also included, is news that Regulation (EU) 2025/327 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2025 on the European Health Data Space was published in the Official Journal and will take effect on 25 March 2025, the European pharmaceutical industry has raised a legal challenge to Directive 91/271/EEC (Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (UWWTD)) in the EU General Court for singling out the pharma and cosmetic industries for wastewater treatment costs and it has issued a response voicing concerns about the implementation of the Critical Medicines Act, Medicines for Europe has issued a press release calling for substantial reforms in EU pharmaceutical regulation, NICE launched a new Medicines and Medical Devices Access...
Read the latest 8364 News articles on Intention
**Trials are provided to all UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥ content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥ services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK, Ireland and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
0330 161 1234