Dyslexia and Disability Discrimination: In Patterson v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis, the EAT held that a policeman was dyslexic was disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The EAT held that in determining whether someone is disabled the important comparison is between what the individual can do and would be able to do without the impairment.
|
The Solicitors Regulation Authority has ordered Gabb & Co solicitors to repay £160,000 in deducted fees from compensation payments to miners it represented in claims for respiratory diseases and vibration white finger.
|
On appeal, Direct Line’s objection to the registration of Esure’s device mark, consisting of a representation of a computer mouse on wheels, was upheld under s.5(3) based on Direct Line’s mark consisting of a telephone on wheels. There was no error of law in the hearing officer’s conclusion that the use of Esure’s mark would be detrimental to the distinctive character of Direct Line’s mark. The appeal was allowed in respect of the hearing officer’s decision under s.5(2)(b) because the hearing ...
|
The contractor (C) was engaged to install a sprinkler system in D’s car assembly plant. Under the contract, D was required to maintain joint names insurance of the existing structures and works against specified perils, but failed to do so. Prior to completion of the works, water escaped from a supply pipe on the sprinkler system. The Court held that C was entitled to recover compensation in respect of the loss arising from the escape of water because the D was required under the contract to ...
|
Responsibility for maintaining statement. Regulation 7 of the 1996 Education (Areas to which Pupils and Students Belong) Regulations was not confined to questions of recoupment between local authorities. In the instant case, a looked-after child had been placed in a children’s home within the area of the second defendant local authority. The issue then arose as to who was responsible for maintaining the statement and, accordingly, for producing a transition plan in respect of the claimant p ...
|
After judgment finding that some of the Defendants were liable for breach of fiduciary duty and others for conspiracy or dishonest assistance in breach of a fiduciary duty the Court made a number of findings related to consequential orders distinguishing between those liable for breach of fiduciary duties and the others. Neither compound interest nor indemnity costs could be claimed against those liable for conspiracy or dishonest assistance. Equally unlike those liable for breach of fiduciary d ...
|
Direct Line objected to the registration of eSure’s logo using a computer mouse on wheels as it was too similar to Direct Line’s telephone on wheels, which was well established. The Court found that the use of the eSure’s trade mark would take an unfair advantage of the very distinctive character of Direct Line’s earlier trade mark of high reputation and there would be a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. Therefore, it could not be registered under the Trade Marks Act 1994.
|
The doctor was facing serious charges of professional misconduct including threatening and intimidating colleagues, undertaking paid employment whilst suspended from work on full pay and failing to disclose a criminal conviction. Although aware of the hearing date for many months he applied for an adjournment a matter of days before the hearing. The application was refused and the hearing proceeded in his absence. The panel heard from a number of witnesses from the GMC and saw some but not all o ...
|
An insured was entitled to an anti-suit injunction in respect of a challenge in the US Courts brought by the insurer arising out of a London arbitration award because the invocation of the jurisdiction of another court would be a breach of the arbitration agreements including the contract to arbitrate, the agreement to refer and the agreement to the procedural law.
|
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal had been entitled to make an order under s. 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against an individual who falsely represented himself as a solicitor and sought legal fees despite that fact that he had not been dishonest.
|
| 1 |