Search results
1993 results ordered by
Hold your horses: Raceday data dispute likely to head to Supreme Court
In a dispute, between suppliers of live betting and raceday data from racecourses, the Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether a duty of confidence could be applied to live sports data between its creation and broadcast when that information was available in real time. We look at the Court's decision, and the reasons for it, in more detail below.
Read moreBrexit – a guide to protecting your rights from 1 January 2021
Like many other areas of law, intellectual property (IP) will undergo a raft of changes overnight, when the Brexit transition period expires on December 31 2020.
Read moreNeat infringement claim leaves whiskey competitor’s trade mark on the rocks
The producers of Eagle Rare bourbon whiskey have succeeded in their trade mark infringement claim against competitor, American Eagle. The case highlights the impact of market-specific context in determining whether consumers are likely to be confused by similar trade marks. Whilst the case has general relevance, it will be of specific interest to alcohol and luxury goods brands.
Read moreToo many cooks… 'Fit Kitchen' trade mark infringed
On 29 July, Fit Kitchen Limited (FKL) won its case for trade mark infringement and passing off against Scratch Meals Limited (SML). Both FKL and SML provide healthy pre-prepared meals: FKL via an online subscription site, which allows users to customise meal choices, based on their individual macros and dietary preferences and SML, through the manufacture and sale of products to supermarkets.
Read moreBritish Gymnastics lands well in trade mark infringement proceedings
The national governing body (NGB) for Gymnastics in Britain has succeeded in trade mark infringement and passing off proceedings against an organisation using the sign “UK Gymnastics”, in a Judgment which is likely to assist several Sport England and UK Sport-funded NGBs. In particular, it shows how to deal with organisations using signs which suggest they are an NGB (when they are not).
Read moreSega’s early win against Man Utd in Football Manager trade mark case
As first published by leading sports law resource LawInSport, Jeremy Drew and Samuel Coppard discuss Man United’s trade mark infringement proceedings against Sega and Sports Interactive in relation to Football Manager.
Read moreLuxury and online marketplaces - the next chapter (Coty v Amazon)
On 2 April 2020, the CJEU ruled that storing infringing goods on behalf of a third-party seller, without knowing that those goods infringe trade mark rights does not constitute infringement, provided that the storing party does not pursue the aim of offering the goods for sale or putting them on the market.
Read moreLandmark case sees trade mark specifications cut down on grounds of bad faith.
Today, the High Court handed down judgment in Sky v SkyKick. The judgment follows the CJEU's 29 January 2020 decision, which answered various questions that the High Court had referred to it, back in June 2018.
Read moreCOVID-19 prompts changes to working arrangements for the Court of Justice of the European Union
Prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the CJEU announced, on 19 March 2020, that it will be temporarily changing its working arrangements.
Read moreEUIPO issues clarification on COVID-19 extension of time for trade mark and design proceedings
The EUIPO has issued a clarification in respect of Decision No EX-20-3 noting that the extension of deadlines in trade mark and design EUIPO proceedings to 1 May 2020 applies automatically.
Read moreSo Long Blues
Following our previous IP hub update, Glaxo has suffered fresh survey woes.
Read moreHigh Court permits enforcement of foreign judgment in crypto recovery case
Tai Mo Shan Ltd v. Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1514 (Comm)
Read moreCourt of Appeal finds that Bitcoin's developers may owe fiduciary duties to bitcoin owners
In a highly anticipated judgment, the Court of Appeal has handed down its decision in Tulip Trading Limited v van der Laan and others [2023] EWCA Civ 83, allowing the claimant's appeal. The court found that the developers looking after Bitcoin arguably owed fiduciary duties in tort to an owner of bitcoin, and whether such a duty did arise in the specific proceedings would depend on the facts established at trial.
Read moreLitigation risk arising from recent LDI related disruption in the UK gilt market
In this bulletin, we examine the role of Liability Driven Investment (LDI) in the widely publicised disruption experienced in the UK gilts market in recent weeks and consider the disputes which might result.
Read moreCompeting subordinated debts – the lessons learnt from Lehmans' insolvency
Some 13 years ago, Lehman Brothers' sudden and unexpected insolvency sent ripples across the banking and financial services market, some of which are still felt today. The Court of Appeal's decision in the consolidated cases of Lehman Brothers Holdings Scottish LP 3 v Lehman Brothers Holdings plc (in administration) and others [2021] EWCA Civ 1523 was the latest in a long line of cases seeking to unwind the issues arising from Lehman Brothers' unexpected collapse.
Read moreHigh Court decides that reviving proceedings automatically stayed under CPR 15.11 requires relief from sanctions
In a recent judgment, the English Commercial Court in Bank of America Europe DAC v CITTA Metropolitana Di Milano has provided guidance on the "automatic stay" provisions of CPR 15.11 and the circumstances in which parties can revive dormant proceedings subject to such an automatic stay.
Read moreAPP fraud: Commercial Court considers approach to unjust enrichment and knowing receipt claims
The recent Commercial Court decision of Tecnimont Arabia Limited v National Westminster Bank PLC(1) considered the court's approach to a claim for unjust enrichment against a recipient bank in an authorised push payment (APP) fraud context. In particular, the Court examined whether the enrichment can be said to be at the 'expense' of the claimant, what factors amount to enrichment being 'unjust' and when the defence of 'change of position' is available. In relation to knowing receipt, the court considered the question of when property is 'trust property' for the purposes of the cause of action.
Read moreAre you a "person discharging managerial responsibility"? High Court clarifies meaning of PDMRs under FSMA
In a recent interim decision in Allianz Global Investors GmbH and Ors v G4S Ltd (formerly G4S plc) [2022] EWHC 1081 (Ch), Mr Justice Miles clarified the scope of the expression "persons discharging managerial responsibility" ("PDMRs") for the purpose of establishing liability under s.90A and Schedule 10A of Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 ("FSMA").
Read morePrivy Council decides that banks owe no Quincecare duty to a beneficial owner of monies in an account
A bank does not owe the beneficial owner of account monies any duty of care in negligence, including any Quincecare duty: this was the conclusion of the Privy Council in the Isle of Man case Royal Bank of Scotland International Ltd v JP SPC4 and another. The appeal concerned a fraud where the account holder had defrauded the beneficial owner of the monies, an investment fund, by paying funds out of the relevant bank accounts in contravention of a legitimate investment scheme.
Read moreCourt of Appeal strikes out defences that funds' losses resulting from FX manipulation have been passed on to investors following redemption
In Allianz Global Investors GmbH & Ors v Barclays Bank PLC & Ors(1), the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the claimant funds (the Funds) and struck out defences by the Defendant banks (the Banks) that losses incurred by the Funds had been avoided or passed on upon redemption by their investors.
Read moreCourt of Appeal holds that Quincecare duty can arise in principle where customer gives instructions in authorised push payment fraud
The Court of Appeal has clarified in Philipp v Barclays Bank UK Plc [2022] EWCA Civ 318 that the Quincecare duty, which requires a bank to refrain from acting on a payment instruction and to make inquiries when it is on notice of a serious possibility of fraud, can arise for a bank even where it is the customer themselves giving instructions to pay money out of their account to a fraudster.
Read moreCourt of Appeal draws distinction between claims for recovery of tax and restitution for tax paid out fraudulently
In Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners,(1) the Court of Appeal investigated in detail the operation of rule 3(1) of Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws (edition 15) (Dicey rule 3), which provides that English courts do not have jurisdiction over actions for "the enforcement, either directly or indirectly, of a penal, revenue, or other public law of a foreign State". The Court decided that the Danish tax authority's claim did not fall within Dicey rule 3 as it concerned the restitution of monies misappropriated by fraud rather than enforcement of tax.
Read moreWhere's the damage? High Court dismisses jurisdiction challenge in US$495 million claim
The High Court has dismissed UBS' challenge to jurisdiction in a ca. US$495 million claim – and in doing so set out useful guidance in terms of how the Court will determine "where the damage has occurred" in cases of economic loss. The judge looked for the most "natural analysis" in determining the manifestation of the loss, and broadly agreed that "the usual answer [in bad investment cases] will be that the loss occurs in, and at the place of, the bank account which was depleted."
Read moreESG claims in the banking and financial markets Sector: will "greenwashing" claims soon be common in the UK?
Environmental, Social and Governance "ESG" funds are an attractive avenue for investors seeking responsible investment choices.
Read moreNo knowing receipt claim where equitable interest is destroyed: Byers v Saudi National Bank
The Court of Appeal has held that a claim in knowing receipt will fail if, at the moment of receipt, the beneficiary’s equitable proprietary interest is destroyed or overridden so that the recipient holds the property as beneficial owner.
Read moreHow aware were you? High Court refuses to strike out fraudulent misrepresentation claim in VW 'Dieselgate' emissions
In Crossley and others v Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft and others(1) the High Court refused to strike out or summarily dismiss the fraudulent misrepresentation claim brought by more than 86,000 vehicle owners against Volkswagen ("VW").
Read moreHigh Court dismisses application for extension of limitation period on basis of fraud at summary judgment stage
In Libyan Investment Authority v Credit Suisse International & Ors ([2021] EWHC 2684 (Comm), the Commercial Court granted summary judgment dismissing the Libyan Investment Authority's (LIA's) claims against Credit Suisse International (Credit Suisse) and others on the grounds that they were time-barred.
Read moreLimitation Act 1980 s.32(1): whether a claimant could have discovered fraud with "reasonable diligence" extends to events prior to accrual of the cause of action
The High Court found that, when considering the postponement of the limitation period for the purposes of Section 32(1) of the Limitation Act 1980, the question of whether the claimant could have discovered the fraud with "reasonable diligence" extends to the period before the claimant suffered a loss.
Read moreEnglish Commercial Court upholds the validity of swap contracts entered into by an Italian local authority
The Commercial Court has found that there was no limitation on the capacity of the Italian local authority Busto di Arsizio to enter into a valid swap contracts with Deutsche Bank.
Read moreLOIs and liability for inducement of breach of contract
A recent Court of Appeal ruling highlights the risk to traders and, in particular, to their officers and employees personally, of giving/arranging a letter of indemnity to a carrier against liability arising out of delivery of goods without presentation of the bills of lading. This blog examines the risk of such arrangements giving rise to a liability on their part under the tort of procuring a breach of contract.
Read moreLetters of Credit under commodity contracts – keep the focus
This blog takes a look at the issues concerning the timing of the provision of letters of credit under commodity contracts and the importance, from both the buyer's and seller's perspective, of keeping an "eye on the ball".
Read moreArbitration awards and fraud revisited
The English Court of Appeal has rejected a further attempt by the buyers of goods to set aside enforcement of a CIETAC arbitration award on grounds of fraud.
Read moreSabotage at sea - The LADY M
In The LADY M, the English Commercial Court held that shipowners could rely on the Hague-Visby Rules fire defence even when the fire was set by the crew (without owners’ knowledge). In so doing, the admiralty concept of barratry received rare consideration by the Courts.
Read moreCommodity specification breach – can I reject?
A common question which arises in day to day commodity trading is whether a buyer can reject goods which do not meet the specifications set out in the contract. This blog discusses the factors which commonly come into play in determining that question.
Read moreLiability for commencement of approach voyage under voyage charters - absolute?
A recent judgment of the Commercial Court examines a novel point in respect of the obligation on an owner under a voyage charter to get the vessel to the load port when the charter contains a cancelling date but no expected readiness to load date or load port ETA.
Read moreShow me the money – turning liens into cash
Most charterparties give owners the right to lien cargo for unpaid hire or freight. However, it may be necessary to sell the cargo in order to obtain payment. The English Commercial Court has recently considered the circumstances in which it would be prepared to order the sale of cargo held under a shipowners' lien.
Read moreOdd but clear contract lines not to be disturbed by the Court
In a recent Commercial Court decision on the construction of a tailored demurrage provision in a charterparty, the Court refused to rewrite the parties agreement regarding demurrage merely because "it might be thought odd".
Read moreKnow your (package) limitations
High Court decision clarifying application of the Hague-Visby Rules (HVR) to sea waybills and package limitation for containerised goods
Read moreI see no ships – condition precedents under FOB contracts
A recent judgment of the Commercial Court suggests that a FOB buyer can be excused from nominating a vessel by an unaccepted renunciation of contract by a seller. This blog questions the court's approach in this case and examines the basic principles engaged.
Read morePayment against letters of indemnity – is it safe?
In the commodity trading world, it is traditional for payment to be made by the buyer against the presentation by the seller of certain shipping documents including bills of lading. That is the case whether payment is to be made under a letter of credit (LC) or by direct tender of documents to the buyer. However, a common practice has developed, particularly in the oil trade, for parties to agree in their contracts that the seller may, instead of presenting shipping documents to trigger payment, present a letter of indemnity instead. But there are risks to the buyer in paying against such letters of indemnity.
Read more"NEW FLAMENCO" – Supreme Court reverses Court of Appeal
In a shock decision, the Supreme Court has allowed shipowners' appeal in the "NEW FLAMENCO". The Supreme Court held that the sale of the ship following the repudiation of the charterparty was not an act in mitigation, and was not relevant to the calculation of damages for breach of contract.
Read morePushing the (port) limits
The recent case of Navalmar UK Ltd v Kale Maden Hammaddeler Sanayi ve Ticaret AS [2017] EWHC 116 (Comm) essentially re-affirmed the principles set out in the well know case of The Joanna Oldendorff [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 285, dealing with when a vessel was an arrived ship and what must be considered in deciding the limits of the port. However, as this case demonstrates, it remains a matter of fact as to whether a vessel is within the port limits or not.
Read more"Fraud unravels all" – or does it?
The English Commercial Court has upheld the enforcement of a foreign arbitration award against a buyer of goods even though the seller submitted forged bills of lading under the letter of credit
Read moreSecurity for costs – be reasonable!
A recent Judgment in Hong Kong on a security for costs application reinforces the wide discretion of the Court as to the form and quantum of security which should be accepted
Read moreAn acceptable degree of uncertainty
Certainty, we are told, is a good thing, as a matter of both legal principle and commercial common sense. Certainty means predictability, which companies and merchants value because it allows them to plan and make decisions in the knowledge of the likely outcomes. This has been a major feature of English commercial law since at least the time of Lord Mansfield.
Read moreSupreme Court clarifies the impact of a "collateral lie" made by an assured during the claims process
The Supreme Court has ruled that a lie told by an assured during the course of a claim presentation will not necessarily invalidate the assured's right to recover under his insurance.
Read moreTake it to the limit (but no further)
In a recent judgment handed down on 12 April 2016, the Hong Kong Admiralty Court examined whether or not crew members' acts or omissions could be regarded as a shipowner's personal acts or omissions for the purposes of breaking limitation under the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976 ("LLMC") [FN1].
Read moreWhat's in a name? Time Charter Trips explored
The time charter trip or "TCT" is a common hybrid, with attributes of both time and voyage charters.
Read moreIs arbitration stifling the common law?
Recent comments by the Lord Chief Justice of England & Wales have reignited a debate over the balance between finality in arbitration and consideration of important points of law by the Courts.
Read moreDown in Flame(s)
What is the value of money? In a recent Commercial Court decision, it was held that the right to redirect the payment of money (or to give it away) is as valuable as the right to have the money paid into one's own bank account.
Read moreStay connected and subscribe to our latest insights and views
Subscribe Here