Walker J considered a claim and counterclaim in relation to an agreement to send out 1 million email messages and 250,000 text messages as part of a sponsorship agreement. The contract stated that these messages would be 'targeted', and the court had to decide whether this definition required the recipients of the messages to have signed up for a particular service with the message provider, or whether it would be sufficient for the recipients to have been selected from purchased data. The court ...
|
Arqiva owns or controls 8,700 mobile telephone antennae around the UK. It sought an injunction against Everything Everywhere (formerly T-Mobile) and the Orange mobile phone network, on the basis that the networks' joint venture was in breach of various agreements as to the use of Arqiva's sites. Ramsay J conducted an expedited trial on certain aspects of the agreements. A key issue was whether OFCOM had been entitled to transfer a license from Orange to Everything Everywhere, given limitations i ...
|
C employed D to develop a new software system for a new centre of operations in Botswana. As the contract developed, it became clear that D would not be able to complete the system by the agreed date, which D attributed to changes in the requirements. C failed to make a payment under the contract, on the basis of the delays. In reliance on that non-payment, and other alleged breaches of contract, D threatened to suspend work pending renegotiation of the contract, and then stopped work on the pro ...
|
C was supplier of software to D under a licence agreement that involved payment of a maintenance fee each year until such time as D gave written notice to C that it no longer required maintenance. In 2007, D purchased a licence extension that provided (amongst other things) as follows: “At the Customer's option, annual maintenance for the licence extension (including upgrade) contained herein for the period 26th October 2007 to 25th October 2008 shall be 17.5% of £750,000” ...
|
D was contracted to store memory cards for C’s PlayStation 2 console and deliver them to C’s UK customers. X was a repeat customer of C’s and regularly ordered shipments of several thousand cards. The cards comprising one such shipment were stolen while in D’s custody. It was common ground that D was liable to make good C’s losses, but a dispute arose as to the correct measure of loss. C, having refunded X, argued it was entitled to recover the full sale price from D; D argued that recovery shou ...
|
D was the main contractor for the provision of IT services to the NHS. The contract between the parties stated that in the event of a dispute the parties would refer the matter to arbitration. However, there was an exception for interim injunctions. D had subcontracted certain services to C who had then licensed those programmes to D. It was alleged that D had started using more licences than it had paid for and C referred the dispute to arbitration. Once the arbitration had commenced C leant th ...
|
D was a supplier of IT services to various government departments. C had supplied mainframe computers to D including some computers used to back up other "live" mainframe computers in the case of disaster. C licensed D to use C's operating system and associated software and also provided repair, maintenance and support services for the mainframes (the live estate). The parties had entered into two agreements (1) an umbrella agreement providing for payment for licensing and system services; and ...
|
The three judgments of this unanimous decision set out the principles which will determine whether procedural defects in the establishment of an arbitral tribunal will justify a jurisdictional challenge to the award – a topic on which there is little English authority. C had entered into a contract with D to create a prototype website for the government of Namibia. The contract included a term providing for disputes to be referred to the Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal (“CSAT”) for ...
|
C was retained by a healthcare company to develop financial forecasting software. C entered into financial difficulties itself and D1, a computer programmer and a director of C, refused to continue working for C. At a meeting it was agreed that D1 and D3 would complete development of the software and would be paid by the customer via D2 (a company controlled by D1). It was also agreed that C would receive a percentage of those payments as a "finder's fee". C subsequently claimed copyright in t ...
|
D was a designer and supplier of engine control units to the racing car industry. C had been engaged by D to advise on the design of the layout of printed circuit boards used in two successive versions of the control units. C alleged that the circuit layouts that resulted from those services caused malfunctioning of the circuit boards and control units and claimed that the contract contained an implied term of fitness for purpose. D denied liability and alleged (i) that C's decision to use bli ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 |