An appeal, against a finding that R’s product did not infringe N’s patents relating to controlled-release formulations of a painkiller, oxycodone, was allowed. A cross-appeal, which claimed that the patents were invalid for added matter, failed. The case of PPG/Disclaimer (G1/03) (2004) EPOR 33 EPO did not vary the basic rule that an undisclosed disclaimer was permissible as not adding matter provided it was a mere disclaimer. If a disclaimer introduced by a divisional application did not add ...
|
By virtue of the Insolvency Act 1986 s.178(4)(b), the original tenant’s liability under a guarantee survived the disclaimer of the relevant lease by the liquidator of the company to which the lease had been assigned.
|
Disability Discrimination - Disability The Employment Tribunal found as a fact that the Claimant was not disabled. That conclusion was challenged on various grounds including perversity. Appeal dismissed on the basis that there was adequate material before the Tribunal which permitted it to come to that conclusion.
|
Sex Discrimination - Jurisdiction Employment Tribunal made a finding of sex discrimination and that the employer was unable to justify it. The EAT held reasoning of Tribunal inadequate and failed to properly apply the burden of proof. The Employment Tribunal also made an order for costs when there was no basis to do so. Appeal allowed and case remitted to a fresh Tribunal. Costs order vacated.
|
Unfair Dismissal - Polkey deduction This is a case regarding unfair dismissal for redundancy by reason of non-compliance with statutory procedure. Jobs found to have genuinely disappeared, but employer found to have made no proper attempt to find alternative employment. Issue whether Claimants would have found/accepted alternative employment even if the employer had acted fairly. Tribunal declined to consider making “Polkey” deduction on basis of the inadequacy of the evidenc ...
|
Disability Discrimination - Disability related discrimination The Claimant who is a disabled man claimed that his former employer discriminated against him on grounds of disability and the claim succeeded in front of the Employment Tribunal. So in identifying the appropriate comparator, it applied the test in Clark v Novacold [1999] ICR 951 which was not followed in the later decision of the House of Lords in London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm [2008] 1 AC 1399, which was not an employm ...
|
The claimant assured, GPS, claimed against the defendant insurer Syarikat Takaful in respect of the loss of three legs of a ‘jack-up’ rig which was being towed on a barge from Texas to Malaysia. The rig was a self elevating ‘jack-up’ rig consisting of a working platform which could be jacked up and down according to the sea depth at the in-service location. The issue to be determined was the proximate cause of the loss of the legs of the rig while being towed from Texas to Malaysia. The voyage ...
|
In March 1998 the claimant retained the defendant solicitors' firm for advice and to act on his behalf with respect to proceedings which he wished to bring against the Mid-Sussex National Health Service Trust. The proceedings against the Trust concerned alleged delays in diagnosing and treating the claimant's Subdural Haematoma which had developed. The defendant solicitors’ firm failed to bring the action against the Trust in time, which meant that the claimant lost the opportunity to pursue his ...
|
The FSA’s first insider dealing criminal prosecution led to convictions of a solicitor and his father-in-law in respect of profits made from knowledge acquired in his position of General Counsel for TTP Communications in respect of a proposed take-over of the company. The FSA obtained a court order freezing the profits made from the trade. Both received sentences of imprisonment, the father-in-law’s sentence being suspended.
|
Unfair Dismissal - Reasonableness of dismissal An Employment Tribunal erred as it focussed upon a decision made by the employer to negotiate a settlement under a procedure leading to a lesser penalty than dismissal. The procedure broke down and at a fair and reasonable hearing the disciplinary panel decided to dismiss the Claimant. The Employment Tribunal wrongly substituted its view for the employer’s in deciding the matters put against the Claimant did not justify dismissal ...
|
| 1 |