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 ...
|
An offender who had made an unqualified guilty plea to a charge of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs and had declined to challenge the facts by way of a Newton hearing was entitled to challenge the prosecution evidence at the confiscation proceedings.
|
Costs Apportionment In Line With Liability Upheld: The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had been entitled to award costs in accordance with his finding of a 65:35 split on liability as, having regard to the Defendant’s cross-claim, he had been correct to decide that justice was best served by him doing so. Although the cross-claim was “by the wayside” and not a formally pleaded Counterclaim, and it was not mentioned by the judge when making the Order, it was clear that liability in the ...
|
This case concerns the application of the HGCRA 1996 to certain types of project. The Act applies to “construction contracts” which is broadly defined to include most contracts for construction or engineering works, and can also include design or consultancy work for such projects. However, the Act applies only in limited respects to energy and utilities projects. Section 105(2)(c)(i) of the Act excludes “assembly, installation or demolition of plant or machinery, or erection or demolition of ...
|
This case dealt with the nature and date of accrual of the cause of action for challenging an adjudicator’s decision. The claimants argued that the cause of action arose out of the adjudication decision itself. The defendants claimed it arose from the original breach of contract. The question was material in this case as six years had passed since the original breach of contract, and therefore the time limit under the Limitation Act 1980 for bringing a claim in contract had passed. The judge ...
|
Court Erred in Ordering Claimant to Pay Security For Costs: The Court of Appeal held that the High Court had erred in ordering the Claimant to pay security for costs in respect of its claim. Although the precondition to make such an order, that the Claimant had no assets, had been satisfied, the Court should have taken into account other factors that pointed away from making such an order. The Claimant had a bona fide claim, on the evidence before the Court one side or the other was bound to win ...
|
Collision action limitation periods & counterclaimsL’s ship collided with G’s in the Suez Canel, whereupon G’s sank. Both parties wished to make claims against each other. The limitation period for such a claim is provided as being 2 years by section 190(3) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Following a mutually agreed extension of time, G issued proceedings. L in turn issued a counterclaim, but G took the point that L’s counterclaim was out of time.The court found that the limitation period in ...
|
| 1 |