Intellectual Property Law: Schutz (UK) Ltd v Werit UK Ltd, SC (Lord Neuberger, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr), 13/3/13

The Supreme Court explored the interpretation of the word “makes” in s.60(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1977. It was inevitably a matter of fact and degree, depending on context, whether an activity involved “making” an article of fell short of that. It might sometimes be useful to consider whether the alleged infringer was repairing rather than making the article. The mere fact that a process involved replacing a constituent part of an article did not necessarily point to ‘making’ rather than repairing. In the instant case, the replacement of the ‘bottle’ component in reconditioned IBCs (consisting of a metal cage around a bottle) did not amount to ‘making’ the patented article.

Other posts by

May 17, 2013   Posted in: Case Reports  No Comments

Construction Law: Nelson’s Yard Management Co v Ezfiefula [2013] EWCA Civ 235

This Party Wall etc Act 1996 case concerned which party was responsible for costs of an action that the Claimant discontinued. The Defendant had commenced excavations near to the rear wall of the Claimant’s property without serving a Party Wall Act notice. The Claimant sent 4 letters setting out the failure to serve a notice and asking that its surveyor have access to inspect the foundations. The Defendant did not respond. The Claimant then issued proceedings seeking injunctive relief. The Defendant served a Defence arguing the Act did not apply. Arrangements were made for the Claimant’s surveyor to inspect, and the Defendant served a notice and paid an award under the Act. The Claimant discontinued the proceedings but applied for its costs on the basis of the Defendant’s obstructive behaviour. The Judge held that the normal CPR rule 38.6(1) applied and the Claimant was liable for the Defendant’s costs incurred before the date of the notice of discontinuance. The Court of Appeal allowed the Claimant’s appeal. It was held in this case the Defendant’s conduct prior to the commencement of the action was unreasonable, as he did not respond to conduct, set out his position or seek to narrow the issues or engage with the Claimant so as to resolve them.

Other posts by

May 16, 2013   Posted in: Case Reports  No Comments

Book Recommendation: How the Law Works

How the Law Works is a refreshingly clear and reliable guide to today’s legal system. Offering interesting and comprehensive coverage, it makes sense of all the curious features of the law in day to day life and in current affairs.

Explaining the law and legal jargon in plain English, it provides an accessible entry point to the different types of law and legal techniques, as well as today’s compensation culture and human rights law. In addition to explaining the role of judges, lawyers, juries and parliament, it clarifies the mechanisms behind criminal and civil law.

How the Law Works is essential reading for anyone approaching law for the first time, or for anyone who is interested in an engaging introduction to the subject’s bigger picture.

Available from Amazon

Other posts by

May 15, 2013   Posted in: Books  No Comments

Monday morning with Alex Williams’ cartoons,13th May 2013

This cartoon is by Alex Williams who draws the Queen’s Counsel cartoons for The Times and in numerous books including Lawyers Uncovered. He also does the cartoons for BabyBarista and has had two more excellent books published recently: 101 Ways to Leave the Law and 101 Uses for a Useless Banker. He offers almost all of his cartoons for sale at £120 for originals and £40 for copies and they can be obtained from this email infoatqccartoondotcom.

Other posts by

May 13, 2013   Posted in: Cartoons  No Comments

Construction Law: AJ Building and Plastering Ltd v Turner and others

The Claimant was appointed by the insurance company of the three Defendant homeowners to carry out repair works on each of their houses. The insurance company instructed Rok to carry out the works, and Rok had sub-contracted the Claimant. However, following payment by the insurance company to Rok for the works, Rok went into administration. The Claimant was therefore unpaid and unable to claim the money owed from Rok. The Claimant sought to claim against the Defendants directly, relying on a mandate signed between each Defendant and the Claimant. Then Court however held that that the mandates did not create a direct contractual obligation on the Defendants to pay the Claimant. The surrounding circumstances were, inter alia, that the parties were aware that the insurers would pay, and the Defendants had no say in the price of the works. Accordingly, the payment from the insurers to Rok discharged the Defendant’s liability.

Other posts by

May 10, 2013   Posted in: Case Reports  No Comments

Criminal Law: Regina (on the Application of Dragoman) -v- Camberwell Green Magistrates’ Court [2013] EWHC 72

In this case the Appellant was sentenced to a community order for offences of theft and going equipped purportedly made pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.177. The Appellant was a Romanian national. The community order included a requirement that the Appellant did not enter the United Kingdom for a period of twelve months. The Appellant applied for judicial review of the decision of the Court to impose the aforementioned requirement.
In allowing the appeal and holding that the order made in this case was unlawful the Queen’s Bench Division reaffirmed the principle that the purpose of a community order was to rehabilitate someone within the United Kingdom. This order was tantamount to an order for deportation, for which a Statutory regime existed under the United Kingdom Borders Act 2007. Whilst orders could contain a requirement excluding an offender from parts of the United Kingdom, e.g. in order to stop offending, a requirement prohibiting an offender from the United Kingdom in its entirely was unlawful.

Other posts by

May 9, 2013   Posted in: Case Reports  No Comments

Internet Newsletter for Lawyers May/June 2013

We’re pleased to tell you that the latest issue of the Internet Newsletter for Lawyers is now published.

In this Issue:

• The digital shift: Laurence Kaye suggests ten overriding, interlinked themes shaping the legal agenda

• Cloud computing: Alex Heshmaty on using Google Drive, Google Chromebook and other Google cloud services

• Cloud issues: David Flint of MacRoberts continues his review of cloud computing and data protection issues

• Resources: Amanda Millmore reviews the Best of the Legal Web – general resources for all lawyers

• Law firm websites: Graham Laing of Rokman Laing suggests how to improve websites and content for maximum impact

• Legal apps: A&L Goodbody has released Ireland’s first Data Privacy Law app, supported by the Irish DP Commissioner

• The Web: 20 years ago CERN made its Web technology available on a royalty-free basis. Happy Birthday!

You can access the Newsletter online at http://www.infolaw.co.uk/newsletter/

The RSS feed of latest articles is at http://www.infolaw.co.uk/newsletter/feed/

Enjoy

Nick Holmes and Delia Venables

PS. Our new 2013 CPD courses will soon be available. For details, see www.infolaw.co.uk/cpd.

Other posts by

May 8, 2013   Posted in: News  No Comments

Book Recommendation: The Dawn Patrol

Boone Daniels is a laid-back kind of private investigator. He has sleuthing skills to burn but is rarely out of his boardshorts, and with a huge Pacific storm approaching San Diego, Boone wants to be there to ride the once-in-a-lifetime waves with his buddies in the Dawn Patrol. Unfortunately he’s just landed a case involving one dead and one missing stripper, but with the help – or hindrance, Boone thinks – of uptight lawyer Petra Hall, he’s determined to wrap it up in time for the epic surf.

But all sorts of trouble follows with Hawaiian gangs and trafficked Mexican girls, as the case turns dark and personal, raising ghosts from Boone’s troubled past and dragging in Sunny and the rest of the Dawn Patrol. The currents turn treacherous on land and at sea as the big swell makes landfall, and Boone has to fight just to keep his head above water…

Available from Amazon

Other posts by

May 8, 2013   Posted in: Books  No Comments

Monday morning with Alex Williams’ cartoons, 6th May 2013

This cartoon is by Alex Williams who draws the Queen’s Counsel cartoons for The Times and in numerous books including Lawyers Uncovered. He also does the cartoons for BabyBarista and has had two more excellent books published recently: 101 Ways to Leave the Law and 101 Uses for a Useless Banker. He offers almost all of his cartoons for sale at £120 for originals and £40 for copies and they can be obtained from this email infoatqccartoondotcom.

Other posts by

May 6, 2013   Posted in: Cartoons  No Comments

Criminal Law: Regina -v- Nelson [2013] EWCA Crim 30

Before enunciating judgment in this case Keith J explained that “when giving leave to appeal, one of the members of the Full Court said, perhaps with his tongue in his cheek, that the Full Court might want to take up the gauntlet and write the definitive work on assault and battery…we have not found it necessary to do that because the law seems to us to be tolerably clear, even if there is a passage in Archbold 2013 which might suggest otherwise”.
The Appellant sought to appeal against his conviction for an offence of common assault following his trial in the Crown Court. On Count One on the Indictment the Appellant was charged with battery. The trial Judge decided to leave common assault to the jury as an alternative to Count One. In the event the jury acquitted the Appellant of the offence of assault by beating and convicted him of common assault. The jury must be regarded as having been sure only that the Appellant threw a punch but not having been sure that the punch landed.
The appeal raised the issue of whether common assault can be left as an alternative to an offence of assault by beating. The issue turns on the application of the Criminal Law Act 1967, s.6(3).
In allowing the appeal against conviction Keith J held that it follows that because one of the ingredients of the offence of common assault is not among the ingredients of the offence of assault by beating an allegation of assault by beating does not amount to or include, whether expressly or by implication, an allegation of common assault. It was, therefore, not open to the jury to convict the Appellant of common assault by virtue of s.6(3). The position would, of course, have been different if there had been an alternative count of common assault on the Indictment. Then there would have been nothing to prevent the jury from convicting the Appellant of common assault once he had been acquitted of assault by beating. But the route by which the Judge left common assault to the jury, by way of an alternative verdict under s.6(3) rather than by an additional Count in the Indictment, was impermissible.

Other posts by

May 3, 2013   Posted in: News  No Comments