Insights & News

It’s obvious, patents are not child’s play!

28 March 2017

In a recent decision the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court had to consider whether a patent for a children’s toy consisting of water soluble, fusible, translucent beads was merely an aesthetic creation, and therefore excluded from patentability and if not, whether the patent claims lacked an inventive step and were obvious. If the patent was valid, the Court also had to determine whether it was infringed by the Defendant’s product.

Guideline on reduction in sentence for a guilty plea

16 March 2017

The Sentencing Council for England and Wales has issued a new guideline. It applies equally in magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court, to all individual offenders aged 18 and older, and to organisations, in cases where the first hearing is after May 31 2017, regardless of the date of the offence.

Bad timing for a counterclaim

27 February 2017

The provisions of section 35(3) of the Limitation Act 1980 will not enable a defendant to bring counterclaim that would otherwise be time barred before the proceedings had commenced.

Court considers service of a defendant’s notice to force claimant to serve proceedings or discontinue a claim

14 February 2017

A recent decision not only reminds practitioners of a defendant’s ability to force a claimant to either serve proceedings or discontinue a claim by using a CPR 7.7(1) notice, but also considers for the first time the date for compliance with such a notice.

Legal advice privilege: Not as wide as you think?

08 February 2017

Who is a lawyer’s client and what type of communications are protected for the purposes of legal advice privilege have been the subject of two recent important High Court decisions. These cases make it clear that not all communications between lawyers and a client’s employees will be protected by legal advice privilege, even if the communication took place to allow legal advice to be given.

Indemnity costs intended to have chilling effect

07 February 2017

Court orders indemnity costs in recognition of the fact that litigation became “out of control” due to factors that were attributable to the conduct of the Claimants and their legal representatives and experts in the lead up to trial.

Does a solicitor own the goodwill associated with their own name?

01 February 2017

In (1) Juthika Bhayani and (2) Bhayani Law Limited v Taylor Bracewell LLP this question was considered by the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court.

Employee claim to compensation under the Patents Act rejected

25 January 2017

Employees may claim statutory compensation if they are responsible for a patent of “outstanding benefit” to their employer.

Taking evidence from witnesses who are under obligations of confidence

19 January 2017

Dawn Raids: What to do

27 November 2016

It is absolutely essential to have a procedure in place for dealing with Dawn Raids.

Flowers fails to reign over Cardiff City Council but solidifies the importance of CPR 83.2- Landlords beware!

25 October 2016

Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justice Briggs in the matter of Cardiff County Council v Lee (Flowers) [2016] EWCA Civ 1034 (“Flowers”).

Shiny talent, shady dealing: the case of Mauro Milanese v Leyton Orient Football Club

24 August 2016

The fallout from senior level football terminations rarely extends to a trial in the High Court. Most disputes are settled or go to arbitration, which is a private process. Leyton Orient’s sacking of its Director of Football Mauro Milanese, however, prompted Milanese to sue the club for wrongful dismissal, and the case went to trial in March 2016. Judgment was given in May 2016.

Without prejudice privilege: not a cloak for improper threats

16 August 2016

Without prejudice privilege (“WP privilege”) allows parties to a dispute to try to settle their differences without their discussions being revealed to the court, and potentially to the public.

Pheasant sick as a parrot

21 March 2016

Today, 21 March 2016, HHJ Pelling handed down his judgment in relation to the account of profits element of the long-running dispute between Jack Wills and House of Fraser over the use of a logo consisting of a pigeon with a top-hat and bow-tie on some of its own-brand “Linea” products. The logo was found by Mr Justice Arnold to infringe Jack Wills’ rights in its “Mr. Wills” pheasant with a top-hat and a cane.

Highly unattractive: Court criticises complaints raised for the first time when resisting enforcement

04 February 2016

The Commercial Court denied an application to resist enforcement and recognition of a French judgment on the basis of public policy. The court reiterated the exceptional nature of the public policy carve out in the Brussels Regulation (44/2001) particularly in circumstances where the grounds relied on by the applicant could have been raised in the foreign court itself.

When a loss becomes a gain: accounting for gains made when mitigating losses

01 February 2016

Following a breach of contract, the innocent party is usually entitled to damages. Broadly speaking these are set at a level required to put them in the position they would have been had the contract been performed properly. However, there is no entitlement to recover for avoidable loss and so this gives rise to what is sometimes referred to as a “duty” to take all reasonable steps to mitigate one’s loss. If the steps taken increase the loss overall, the increased figure is recoverable. On the other hand, if steps taken in mitigation are successful, the wrongdoer is entitled to the benefit accruing and their liability is for the resulting loss as lessened. But what happens when the claimant’s steps to mitigate are so effective that he makes a profit, wiping out any loss arising from the breach?

Court of Appeal has no appetite for salami slicing

25 January 2016

Without prejudice privilege is founded upon public policy. It serves to encourage litigants to settle their differences. Its effect is to exclude all negotiations genuinely aimed at settlement (whether oral or in writing) from being referred to at trial. Solicitors will often head negotiating correspondence “without prejudice” yet protection is not dependent upon use of the label. It is often misused and arises automatically in appropriate circumstances. So what happens when no label is used and attendees of a meeting later disagree as to its status?

What’s obvious to some is not obvious to all: Supreme Court espouses a conservative approach to implied terms

18 January 2016

“Rent” is what a tenant pays to occupy premises – agreed? So you might think it was “obvious” that a tenant shouldn’t pay rent for any period after the tenancy terminates – e.g. in circumstances where a tenant validly terminates the lease early. If you think that, you were in good company and indeed many landlords would voluntarily reimburse rent paid for the period after the termination date even where the lease did not expressly require this. Why? – because it was it was the right thing to do, obviously!

When will a court override an exclusive jurisdiction clause?

30 November 2015

In Jong v HSBC Private Bank (Monaco) SA [2015] EWCA Civ 1057, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of HHJ Purle QC not to override an exclusive jurisdiction clause, setting out the factors to be balanced in the exercise of the court's discretion.

No duty of loyalty owed by directors to shareholders

26 November 2015

On 12 November 2015, in Sharp & Others v Blank & Others [2015] EWHC 3220 (Ch), Mr Justice Nugee handed down his latest judgment in litigation between the directors and shareholders of Lloyds Bank. His decision is of interest to directors and shareholders alike. It re-affirms the scope of duties owed by directors to shareholders, as well as the approach to be adopted when assessing them.