Case Summaries Up To July 2007
Select Your Region: Scotland  England and Wales  UK  Northern Ireland  Europe  All
Selected Region: All
By Law Brief Publishing on 01/08/2007 00:00
An insurer owed no duty to a third party who was liable for replacement car hire costs, while vehicle repairs were carried out for the insurer's client, to process the insured's claim timely or to ensure that a garage carried out the repairs within a reasonable time.
By Law Brief Publishing on 31/07/2007 00:00
The court was required to determine costs in circumstances where the claimant had been granted a final injunction for minor copyright infringement through breach of the contractual terms of a limited software licence, but by the time proceedings had commenced the defendant had ceased all infringing use of the software, and so the judgment had been of no substantive commercial value. It was held that because there had been no clear successful party the general rule that costs follow the event w ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 23/07/2007 00:00
The Appellant appealed the decision that he was an assured shorthold tenant rather than an assured tenant. The Appellant had been given a rent book with the words "assured tenancy" on the cover. The Court of Appeal held that the use of the words on the cover of the rent book did not amount to a notice within paragraphs 1 or 2 of Schedule 2A, Housing Act 1988 and the tenancy was an assured shorthold tenancy.
By Law Brief Publishing on 16/07/2007 00:00
A hearing officer had been wrong to allow an application to register STERITROX with a limited Class 7 specification. The application had been opposed by the proprietor of STERILOX, which was registered in a wide variety of classes for goods and services relating to sterilization systems. The limitation was ineffective as it was artificial and did not prevent use for services which were covered by the opponent’s specification.
By Law Brief Publishing on 16/07/2007 00:00
A hearing officer had been wrong to allow an application to register STERITROX with a limited Class 7 specification. The application had been opposed by the proprietor of STERILOX, which was registered in a wide variety of classes for goods and services relating to sterilization systems. The limitation was ineffective as it was artificial and did not prevent use for services which were covered by the opponent’s specification.
By Law Brief Publishing on 04/07/2007 00:00
Recalled Prisoners – Application to Parole Board – Does it Consider Propriety of Recall or Propriety of Release – Gulliver v Parole Board. When a prisoner is released on licence, the legislation (Criminal Justice Act 1991 or 2003) allows recall by the Home Secretary on the basis of risk: the matter then passes to the Parole Board, which has the power to order release. The question raised was whether the Board is limited to considering the propriety of the recall – in effect reviewing the decisi ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 01/07/2007 00:00
Dyslexia and Disability Discrimination: In Patterson v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis, the EAT held that a policeman was dyslexic was disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The EAT held that in determining whether someone is disabled the important comparison is between what the individual can do and would be able to do without the impairment.
By Law Brief Publishing on 30/06/2007 00:00
The Solicitors Regulation Authority has ordered Gabb & Co solicitors to repay £160,000 in deducted fees from compensation payments to miners it represented in claims for respiratory diseases and vibration white finger.
By Law Brief Publishing on 28/06/2007 00:00
An insured was entitled to an anti-suit injunction in respect of a challenge in the US Courts brought by the insurer arising out of a London arbitration award because the invocation of the jurisdiction of another court would be a breach of the arbitration agreements including the contract to arbitrate, the agreement to refer and the agreement to the procedural law.
By Law Brief Publishing on 28/06/2007 00:00
The doctor was facing serious charges of professional misconduct including threatening and intimidating colleagues, undertaking paid employment whilst suspended from work on full pay and failing to disclose a criminal conviction. Although aware of the hearing date for many months he applied for an adjournment a matter of days before the hearing. The application was refused and the hearing proceeded in his absence. The panel heard from a number of witnesses from the GMC and saw some but not all o ...
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ...
 
This content is made available by CaseCheck Limited under a Creative Commons Licence  |  Terms Of Use