Generics’ appeal was dismissed, upholding the validity of Daiichi’s patent for a compound, levofloxacin, which is the negative enantiomer of the racemic compound ofloxacin. The judge’s conclusion that the invention was not obvious could not be criticized. A Supplementary Protection Certificate granted in respect of levofloxacin was also valid because it was for all practical purposes a new medicine, even though it had previously been available as part of the racemate.
|
The application for judicial review of the basis of assessment on which compensation would be payable to the former shareholders of Northern Rock following its nationalisation in February 2008 was rejected. The shareholders claimed that the statutory scheme under the Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008 was a violation of their rights under Article 1 of the first protocol to the ECHR which guarantees the protection of private property. The Court of Appeal held that the margin of appreciation in ...
|
Barclays was the relevant merchant acquirer in providing credit card facilities to Lancore. The rules relating to the operation of the Visa and MasterCard systems prohibit unless specially authorised a merchant processing sales on behalf of other businesses (aggregation). Barclays suspected Lancore was involved in aggregating payments and for businesses engaged in transactions relating to pharmaceutical products and pornography which were also not permitted. Barclays refused to transfer the sums ...
|
The claimants (B and F) applied for judicial review of the respondent secretary of state's decision to extradite them to the United States of America. B and F had been accused by the US government of participation in terrorist acts and the US sought the extradition of B and F having categorised F as a specially designated global terrorist. Proceedings were initiated under the Extradition Act 1989. F and B were committed to await the secretary of state's decision as to their return to the US and ...
|
Proof:- In this action the pursuer sought damages from the defenders, her employers, after she slipped on ice in a car par in Aberdeen on 1 March 2004 during the course of her employment. Here at proof all the evidence was agreed by way of a joint minute of admissions, including inter alia that the car park was part of her workplace in terms of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. The only issue related to statutory interpretation. Quantum was agreed at £150,000, whi ...
|
Jurisdictional Points - Worker, employee or neither The ET erred in holding that contracts for the employment of a locum consultant entered into in breach of the National Health Service (Appointment of Consultants) Regulations 1996 as amended were not ultra vires. However the ET did not err in holding that even if they were ultra vires, the locum consultant was an employee within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and could pursue a claim for unfair dismissal in respect of the non re ...
|
Race Discrimination - Inferring discrimination Tribunal wrong to apply test in King v Great Britain-China Centre [1992] ICR 516 instead of applying s.54A of Race Relations Act 1976 on the basis that the Claimant was claiming “colour discrimination” – Chagger v Abbey National plc [2009] ICR 624 followed – but held that there was on the facts no substantive difference between the two approaches and that the Tribunal had been entitled on the evidence not to find race discr ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Review Claimant representative failed to attend review hearing on time and the application was dismissed. This is an appeal seeking relief against that sanction attacking the inadequate reasoning of the Tribunal. Case remitted for review hearing before fresh Employment Tribunal Judge.
|
Unfair Dismissal - Compensation This is an appeal regarding the Tribunal's findings in respect of the Claimant's efforts to mitigate their loss in an unfair dismissal case. Matter remitted back to the Tribunal to determine this.
|
Transfer of Undertakings - Transfer This is an appeal regarding the definition of “activities” under the TUPE Regulations 2006. In this case, the EAT held that the Tribunal was correct in their view that activities had substantially changed for the purposes of Regulation 3(1)(b)(ii) of the TUPE regulations.
|
| 1 |