Results: 128

• R v Rollins (R v McInerney (Michael))

  09 Oct 2009 [2009] EWCA Crim 1941; [2010] Bus LR 734; [2010] 1 All ER 1183; [2010] 1 Cr App R 14; [2009] WLR (D) 294, CA

  28 Jul 2010 [2010] UKSC 39; [2010] 1 WLR 1922; [2010] Bus LR 1529; [2010] 4 All ER 880; [2011] 1 Cr App R 4; [2010] WLR (D) 210; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent citations: 7.
  FINANCIAL SERVICES — Market abuse — Penalties and injunction
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  FINANCIAL SERVICES — Market abuse — Penalties and injunction — Institution of proceedings — Financial Services Authority — Whether FSA empowered to institute proceedings for criminal offences under statutes other than Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 — Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, ss 1(1), 401, 402 (as amended by Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, Sch 7(7), para 33(4)) — Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, ss 327(1), 328(1) (as amended by Enterprise Act 2002, Sch 2, para 40(17))

  2 Case(s) considered

  4 Statutes considered
• Schütz (UK) Ltd v Werit UK Ltd (No 1)

  31 Mar 2010 [2010] EWHC 660 (Pat); [2010] Bus LR 1244, Ch D (Floyd J)

  29 Mar 2011 [2011] EWCA Civ 303; [2011] Bus LR 1510; [2011] WLR (D) 115, CA

  13 Mar 2013 [2013] UKSC 16; [2013] Bus LR 565; [2013] 2 All ER 177; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive. Subsequent citations: 10.
  PATENT — Infringement — Making product
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PATENT — Infringement — Making product — Invention claimed as combination — Whether person who replaces element “makes” patented product — Whether whole inventive concept remaining once element removed — Correct test to be applied — Patents Act 1977, s 60(1)(a)

  5 Case(s) considered

  2 Words & Phrases considered
• Parabola Investments Ltd v Browallia Cal Ltd (formerly Union Cal Ltd)

  06 May 2009 [2009] EWHC 901 (Comm); [2009] 2 All ER (Comm) 589, QBD (Flaux J)

  05 May 2010 [2010] EWCA Civ 486; [2011] QB 477; [2010] 3 WLR 1266; [2010] Bus LR 1446; [2011] 1 All ER (Comm) 210; [2010] WLR (D) 114, CA (Mummery, Toulson, Rimer LJJ)

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive; 2 neutral. Subsequent citations: 34.
  DAMAGES — Deceit — Measure of damages
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  DAMAGES — Deceit — Measure of damages — Claimant trading stocks and shares through defendant stockbrokers — Trading resulting in disastrous losses concealed by defendant falsely representing to claimant that trading profitable — Claimant's investment fund much depleted before fraud discovered — Claimant thereafter trading profitably with reduced fund — Claimant bringing action in deceit — Whether entitled to damages for lost opportunity to trade with unreduced fund during period from discovery of fraud up to date of trial — Whether discovery of fraud marking cut-off point for damages claim

  5 Case(s) considered

• Kellogg Brown & Root Holdings (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs

  24 Mar 2009 [2009] EWHC 584 (Ch); [2009] STC 1359, Ch D

  24 Feb 2010 [2010] EWCA Civ 118; [2010] Bus LR 957; [2010] STC 925; [2010] WLR (D) 53, CA

  Subsequent citations: 1.
  REVENUE — Capital Gains Tax — Disposal of assets

  REVENUE — Capital Gains Tax — Group of persons having control of company
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  REVENUE — Capital Gains Tax — Disposal of assets — Taxpayer company transferring shares in subsidiaries to United Kingdom company owned by United States company owned by taxpayer company's United States parent company — Transaction effected after shares of subsidiaries distributed to parent company's shareholders — Whether transaction between connected persons so that loss on sale of shares not available to set against taxpayer company's gains generally — Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, s 416(2)(3)(6) — Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, ss 18, 28, 286(5)(b)

  REVENUE — Capital Gains Tax — Group of persons having control of company — Taxpayer claiming to deduct capital loss against chargeable gains — Claim disallowed as loss between “connected persons” only deductible from chargeable gains arising on other disposals between same connected persons — Whether two companies “connected” because of link between their ultimate holding companies — Whether “group” to be given ordinary meaning — Whether requiring common purpose as well as common relation — Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, s 416(2) — Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, ss 18, 28, 286(5)(b)

  3 Case(s) considered

  2 Words & Phrases considered

  2 Statutes considered

• R v B (I)

  09 Dec 2009 [2009] EWCA Crim 2575; [2010] Bus LR 748; [2010] 2 All ER 728; [2010] 1 Cr App R 181; [2009] WLR (D) 357, CA

  CRIME — Competition — Restriction or distortion of competition
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CRIME — Competition — Restriction or distortion of competition — Defendant charged with dishonestly engaging in cartel activity — Whether offence “national competition law” for purposes of Council Regulation — Whether Regulation confining power to impose penalty to designated national competition authority — Whether Crown Court having jurisdiction to impose penalty — Enterprise Act 2002, s 188 — Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, arts 3, 5, 35

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  1 EU Enactment considered

  1 Statute considered
• Best Buy Co Inc v Worldwide Sales Corpn España SL

  08 Jul 2010 [2010] EWHC 1666 (Ch); [2010] Bus LR 1761; [2010] FSR 830; [2010] ETMR 974, Ch D (Floyd J)

  24 May 2011 [2011] EWCA Civ 618; [2011] Bus LR 1166; [2011] WLR (D) 173, CA

  01 Nov 2011 (appn dis) [2012] Bus LR 140, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive; 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 12.
  EVIDENCE — Privilege — “Without prejudice” communications

  TRADE MARK — Infringement — Groundless threat of proceedings
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  EVIDENCE — Privilege — “Without prejudice” communications — Circumstances in which without prejudice communications admissible

  TRADE MARK — Infringement — Groundless threat of proceedings — Statutory provision giving person aggrieved right of action — Claimant contending that letter from proprietor of Community trade mark constituting actionable threat — Proper approach to interpreting letter — Whether letter constituting “threat” — Whether threat to bring proceedings in United Kingdom — Whether directed to acts of infringement excluded by statutory provision — Whether letter protected by without prejudice rule — Whether claimants “person aggrieved” — Trade Marks Act 1994, s 21

  8 Case(s) considered

  2 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statute considered
• BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL plc

  30 Jul 2010 [2010] EWHC 2005 (Ch); [2011] 1 WLR 1200; [2010] Bus LR 1731; [2011] 3 All ER 470; [2010] WLR (D) 223, Ch D

  07 Mar 2011 [2011] EWCA Civ 227; [2011] 1 WLR 2524; [2011] Bus LR 1359; [2011] 3 All ER 470; [2011] WLR (D) 73, CA

  09 May 2013 [2013] UKSC 28; [2013] 1 WLR 1408; [2013] Bus LR 715; [2013] 3 All ER 271; [2013] 2 All ER (Comm) 531; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 4 positive. Subsequent citations: 48.
  INSOLVENCY — Winding up — Company's debts
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  INSOLVENCY — Winding up — Company's debts — Company deemed “unable to pay its debts” where its assets exceeded by liabilities “taking into account its contingent and prospective liabilities” — Whether prospective liabilities to be taken into account at face value irrespective of maturity date or rate of interest payable in meantime — Whether company unable to pay debts — Insolvency Act 1986, s 123(1)(e)(2)

  9 Case(s) considered

  2 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statute considered
• Deutsche Bank AG v Highland Crusader Offshore Partners LP

  03 Apr 2009 [2009] EWHC 730 (Comm); [2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep 617; [2009] 1 CLC 535, QBD (Burton J)

  13 Jul 2009 [2009] EWCA Civ 725; [2010] 1 WLR 1023; [2010] Bus LR 515; [2009] 2 All ER (Comm) 987; [2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep 617; [2009] 2 CLC 45; The Times, 15 october 2009; [2009] WLR (D) 254; [2009] CP Rep 45, CA

  Subsequent considerations : 5 positive; 3 neutral. Subsequent citations: 40.
  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Contract — Non-exclusive jurisdiction clause

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction — Anti-suit injunction
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Contract — Non-exclusive jurisdiction clause — Contracts containing non-exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of England — Respondent commencing proceedings in Texas — Applicant commencing proceedings in England — Whether anti-suit injunction to be granted

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction — Anti-suit injunction — Agreement between parties containing English non-exclusive jurisdiction clause — Defendants prosecuting action in Texas court — Claimants bringing parallel proceedings in England and seeking anti-suit injunction in respect of Texas proceedings — Whether presumption that litigation in non-contractual forum vexatious or oppressive absent special circumstances — Whether anti-suit injunction to be granted

  2 Case(s) considered
• Irish Reel Productions Ltd v Capitol Films Ltd

  10 Feb 2010 [2010] EWHC 180 (Ch); [2010] Bus LR 854; [2010] WLR (D) 33, Ch D

  Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 6.
  INSOLVENCY — Administration — Expenses of administration
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  INSOLVENCY — Administration — Expenses of administration — Costs of winding up proceedings — Whether payable as expense of administration — Insolvency Rules 1986, rr 2.12(3), 2.67(1) (as substituted by Insolvency (Amendment) Rules 2003, Sch 1, Pt 2, para 9)

  1 Statutory Instrument considered
• Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth

  31 Jul 2008 [2008] EWHC 1878 (Ch); [2009] FSR 103; [2009] FSR 2, Ch D (Mann J)

  16 Dec 2009 [2009] EWCA Civ 1328; [2010] Ch 503; [2010] 3 WLR 333; [2010] Bus LR 904; [2010] 3 All ER 329; [2010] 2 All ER (Comm) 1101; [2009] WLR (D) 368, CA

  27 Jul 2011 [2011] UKSC 39; [2012] 1 AC 208; [2011] 3 WLR 487; [2011] Bus LR 1211; [2011] 4 All ER 817; [2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 1011; [2011] WLR (D) 257; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive; 1 negative. Subsequent citations: 60.
  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction — Copyright

  COPYRIGHT — Infringement — Sculpture

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction — Anti-arbitration injunction
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction — Copyright — Claimants alleging breach of US copyright by English defendants — Claimants bringing claim in United States for breach of copyright and obtaining judgment in default — Claimants subsequently bringing claim in High Court for breach of US copyright and for enforcement of default judgment — Whether action for breach of US copyright justiciable in England — Whether US default judgment enforceable against defendants in England — Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, Sch 1 (as substituted by Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Amendment) Order 1990, art 12(1), Sch 1), art 2

  COPYRIGHT — Infringement — Sculpture — First defendant producing helmet for use by US claimants as costume in film — Helmet based on claimants’ drawings and models produced using sculpting techniques — Defendants later producing replicas of helmet and advertising them for sale on Internet — Some replica helmets sold to US customers — Claimants bringing claim in United States for breach of copyright and obtaining judgment in default — Claimants subsequently commencing claim in High Court for copyright infringement under English law and for infringment of US copyright and enforcement of US default judgment — Whether model helmet protected by copyright as “sculpture” — Whether action for breach of US copyright justiciable in England — Whether US default judgment enforceable against defendants in England — Whether implied assignment of first defendant's copyright to claimant — Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, ss 4, 51 — Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, Sch 1 (as substituted by Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Amendment) Order 1990, art 12(1), Sch 1), art 2

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction — Anti-arbitration injunction — Claimants alleging breach of United States copyright by English defendants — Whether action for breach of US copyright justiciable in England

  COPYRIGHT — Infringement — Sculpture — First defendant producing helmet for use by claimants as costume in film — Helmet based on claimants’ drawings and models — Defendants later producing and selling replicas of helmet — Whether model helmet protected by copyright as “sculpture” — Whether purpose artistic or utilitarian — Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, ss 4, 51

  17 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered