The defendant former employee (B) of the claimant conference organizer (F) was held to have misappropriated and misused F’s confidential information, infringed F’s rights in its database of customer contacts and other information, and passed himself off as F. However, F had no right to restrain competition of itself, absent a restrictive covenant.
|
An application for an interim injunction, to restrain the launch of STELLANUDE branded perfume products, was dismissed. There was a triable issue as to whether the use of the brand STELLANUDE would infringe the applicant’s CTM NUDE, which was registered for goods including cosmetics and perfume. However, on the balance of justice it was not appropriate to grant the injunction, as the likely damage to the respondents if an injunction was wrongly granted outweighed the damage to the applicant if i ...
|
In opposition proceedings, a patent, concerning apparatus for facilitating the healing of a wound, had been altered so as to widen the negative pressure parameter in claim 1. The correction was allowed on the basis that the inclusion of a more limited parameter had been an “obvious error” pursuant to the EPC Implementing Regulations 1973 r.88. It was now held that the correction had widened the protection conferred by the patent and had not been properly admissible. The patent fell to be revoked ...
|
The owners of a tug boat used in the rescue of a vessel of the coast of Italy sought to bring proceedings for a declaration of non-liability against the vessel’s owners and its insurers. No formal written agreement was concluded, but the tug owners contended that the TOWHIRE terms including an English jurisdiction were incorporated and bound the vessel’s owners and its insurers because the latter had agreed to fund 80% of the hire charges. The Court found that the TOWHIRE terms were incorporated ...
|
Where the Claimants had identified the wrong company in the Willis Group in its Claim Form, its post limitation application to substitute was not permitted because the identity of the intended Defendant was not clear on reasonable enquiry from the claim form or draft Particulars of Claim. Even if it had been the amendment would not have been permitted as a matter of discretion because of various factors including the significant delay.
|
Following a burglary claim, insurers declined liability on several grounds relating to security protection measures. The policy contained a burglar alarm warranty and a protection and maintenance warranty. The burglars had disturbed a vibration detector but it had not activated the alarm and the remote CCTV monitoring station had not received any footage of the incident. Insurers asserted that on the proper construction of the contract the warranties were suspensive conditions or terms limiting ...
|
The use by the FSA of its compulsory powers for document production to assist a foreign regulator such as the SEC in respect of a particular item of litigation was limited to categories of documents relating to the pleaded issues and did not extend to corroborative matters.
|
The FSA was under the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Ombudsman in respect of prudential regulation and not conduct of business regulation. The Ombudsman had been correct to decline to investigate a complaint against the FSA in respect of its review of a circular distributed by Scottish Widows before demutualisation as it was a matter of conduct of business regulation.
|
Mr Justice Munby gave a further judgment in relation to costs arising from ancillary relief proceedings (previous judgment re costs at [2009 1 FLR 1036]) between a father-in -law and wife. It was held that the father-in-law had been justified in seeking injunctive relief to ensure the wife did not dispose of assets without first paying the costs due to him and that the costs of obtaining the injunctive order should be borne by the wife.
|
The CA refused permission to appeal against an order directing her GP to supply medical records to an appointment psychologist to a Mother acting in person in contact proceedings. Given that the Mother had not sought to challenge the original order appointing a psychologist or the orders directing her to disclose her medical records but only challenged the order directed at her GP the CA held that none of her grounds of appeal had any prospect of success.
|
| 1 |