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.
|
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 ...
|
An attack on the validity of the defendant’s patent failed. The patent related to a process for making gemcitabine, a drug used in cancer treatment. The process was not obvious in the light of the cited prior art and the patent was not insufficient.
|
Malta had originally sought H's extradition under an European arrest warrant in respect of three alleged offences of assault occasioning grievous bodily harm, but that warrant was quashed by the Divisional Court on the grounds that the warrant was not sufficiently particularised. Thereafter, Malta issued a second European warrant that again specified the same three offences. An expert report for H stated that one of the offences for which H's extradition was sought could not be classified as ass ...
|
Time charter damagesL let its Vessel to G on an NYPE time charter for “about minimum 3 months to about 5 months (about means +/- 15 days)”. G redelivered the Vessel 6.166 days late. G paid hire to L for the duration of the charter (at the charter rate), together with the market rate for the 6.166 days of overrun.L claimed further hire pursuant to Clause 101 of the charter which provided:“The Charterers hereby undertake the obligation/responsibility to makethorough investigations and every arrang ...
|
The Claimant, who is 60, left Hong Kong for England in February 1998. On 15th February 1999 the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region issued a provisional request for the Claimant's arrest for trial on charges directly connected with a fraud committed by her husband to the value of £900,000. The Claimant was arrested in England in October 2000 pursuant to this request, but was discharged in April 2001. A month later a fresh request was issued. Various legal challenges were ul ...
|
The question for the court was whether a Youth Court could convict a single defendant where the case had been brought on the basis of joint enterprise where the Youth Court found there was no joint enterprise and where the Youth Court could not return an alternative verdict. The answer was “yes”.
|
A claim by developers for £17 million for the tort of abuse of process in respect of an objection to an application for planning permission which was allegedly made for the improper and collateral purpose of seeking to procure a collateral benefit in money or money’s worth was struck out because there was no prospect of the developers showing that the firm’s predominant purpose in threatening and using the judicial review proceedings was collateral to the scope of such proceedings or improper.
|
| 1 |