<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Current Awareness &#187; statutory duty</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/category/statutory-duty/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com</link>
	<description>from the Inner Temple Library</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 16:01:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
		<item>
		<title>Brumder v Motornet Service and Repairs Ltd and another &#8211; WLR Daily</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/03/brumder-v-motornet-service-and-repairs-ltd-and-another-wlr-daily/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/03/brumder-v-motornet-service-and-repairs-ltd-and-another-wlr-daily/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:52:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company directors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health & safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law reports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal injuries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statutory duty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=82486</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Brumder v Motornet Service and Repairs Ltd and another [2013] EWCA Civ 195; [2013] WLR (D) 102 &#8220;In a personal injury claim, it did not lie in the mouth of a claimant who was a defendant company’s sole director and shareholder to assert that the company had not proved that it had done all it [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cases.iclr.co.uk/Subscr/search.aspx?path=WLR%20Dailies/WLRD%202011/wlrd2013-102">Brumder v Motornet Service and Repairs Ltd and another [2013] EWCA Civ 195; [2013] WLR (D) 102</a></p>
<p>&#8220;In a personal injury claim, it did not lie in the mouth of a claimant who was a defendant company’s sole director and shareholder to assert that the company had not proved that it had done all it could to ensure compliance with safety regulations when it was only through the claimant that the company could act. In such a case the company would be entitled to raise a defence to that effect.&#8221;</p>
<p>WLR Daily, 14th March 2013</p>
<p>Source:<a href="http:// www.iclr.co.uk"> www.iclr.co.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/03/brumder-v-motornet-service-and-repairs-ltd-and-another-wlr-daily/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Thames Water Utilities Ltd v Transport for London &#8211; WLR Daily</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/01/thames-water-utilities-ltd-v-transport-for-london-wlr-daily/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/01/thames-water-utilities-ltd-v-transport-for-london-wlr-daily/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2013 10:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[causation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law reports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuisance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statutory duty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[utilities]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=81383</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thames Water Utilities Ltd v Transport for London [2013] WLR (D) 15 &#8220;On the plain construction of regulation 19 of the Traffic Management Permit Scheme (England) Regulations 2007 a statutory undertaker could not avoid a criminal sanction where a person contracted to act on its behalf to undertake specified works in a specified street did [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cases.iclr.co.uk/Subscr/search.aspx?path=WLR%20Dailies/WLRD%202011/wlrd2013-015">Thames Water Utilities Ltd v Transport for London [2013] WLR (D) 15</a></p>
<p>&#8220;On the plain construction of regulation 19 of the Traffic Management Permit Scheme (England) Regulations 2007 a statutory undertaker could not avoid a criminal sanction where a person contracted to act on its behalf to undertake specified works in a specified street did so without a permit.&#8221;</p>
<p>WLR Daily, 17th January 2013</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.iclr.co.uk">www.iclr.co.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2013/01/thames-water-utilities-ltd-v-transport-for-london-wlr-daily/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lord Chief Justice’s Report laid before House of Lords &#8211; Judiciary of England and Wales</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/08/lord-chief-justices-report-laid-before-house-of-lords-judiciary-of-england-and-wales/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/08/lord-chief-justices-report-laid-before-house-of-lords-judiciary-of-england-and-wales/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:56:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[budgets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judiciary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pensions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[remuneration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statutory duty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[violent disorder]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=77130</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;The latest Lord Chief Justice’s Report has been laid before the House of Lords.&#8221; Full story Judiciary of England and Wales, 3rd August 2012 Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The latest Lord Chief Justice’s Report has been laid before the House of Lords.&#8221; </p>
<p><a href="http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/media-releases/2012/lcj-report-2010-12">Full story</a></p>
<p>Judiciary of England and Wales, 3rd August 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.judiciary.gov.uk">www.judiciary.gov.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/08/lord-chief-justices-report-laid-before-house-of-lords-judiciary-of-england-and-wales/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Whitehead v Trustees of the Chatsworth Settlement &#8211; WLR Daily</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/03/whitehead-v-trustees-of-the-chatsworth-settlement-wlr-daily/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/03/whitehead-v-trustees-of-the-chatsworth-settlement-wlr-daily/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 11:32:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>tracey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[health & safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law reports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal injuries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statutory duty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=68500</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Whitehead v Trustees of the Chatsworth Settlement: [2012] EWCA Civ 263;  [2012] WLR (D)  65 &#8220;Reasonable practicability was, at least in part, relevant to the assessment of both limbs of the duty on an employer, under regulation 12(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, to take measures to ensure that the exposure of a [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cases.iclr.co.uk/Subscr/search.aspx?path=WLR Dailies/WLRD 2011/wlrd2012-065">Whitehead v Trustees of the Chatsworth Settlement: [2012] EWCA Civ 263;  [2012] WLR (D)  65</a></p>
<p>&#8220;Reasonable practicability was, at least in part, relevant to the assessment of both limbs of the duty on an employer, under regulation 12(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, to take measures to ensure that the exposure of a person using work equipment to any risk to his health or safety from a regulation 12(3) hazard was either prevented, or, where that was not reasonably practicable, adequately controlled.&#8221;</p>
<p>WLR Daily, 8th March 2012</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.iclr.co.uk">www.iclr.co.uk</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2012/03/whitehead-v-trustees-of-the-chatsworth-settlement-wlr-daily/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Directors&#8217; Fiduciary Duties &#8211; 11 KBW</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2011/11/directors-fiduciary-duties-11-kbw/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2011/11/directors-fiduciary-duties-11-kbw/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2011 10:24:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[company directors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fiduciary duty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statutory duty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/?p=62143</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Were the statutory duties in the Companies Act 2006 intended to be simply a replacement without change?&#8221; Full story (PDF) 11 KBW, 23rd November 2011 Source: www.11kbw.com]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Were the statutory duties in the Companies Act 2006 intended to be simply a replacement without change?&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.11kbw.com/articles/docs/DIRECTORS_DUTIES_PAPERJW.pdf">Full story</a> (PDF)</p>
<p>11 KBW, 23rd November 2011</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.11kbw.com">www.11kbw.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2011/11/directors-fiduciary-duties-11-kbw/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Jenson and another v Faux &#8211; WLR Daily</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2011/04/jenson-and-another-v-faux-wlr-daily/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2011/04/jenson-and-another-v-faux-wlr-daily/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:33:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[building law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defective premises]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law reports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statutory duty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://innertemplelibrary.wordpress.com/?p=50678</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jenson and another v Faux [2011] EWCA Civ 423;  [2011] WLR (D)  133 &#8220;A contractor who carried out works to a dwelling owed a duty under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 to see that the work was done in a workmanlike or professional manner. That duty was owed to the person for whom the works were [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cases.iclr.co.uk/Subscr/search.aspx?path=WLR Dailies/WLRD 2011/wlrd2011-133">Jenson and another v Faux [2011] EWCA Civ 423;  [2011] WLR (D)  133</a></p>
<p>&#8220;A contractor who carried out works to a dwelling owed a duty under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 to see that the work was done in a workmanlike or professional manner. That duty was owed to the person for whom the works were carried out and the purchaser to whom that property was subsequently sold where the dwelling was new, or if refurbished or extended, it was wholly different from the old dwelling. The Act did not apply to improvements which did not sufficiently change the character of the property so as to amount to a new dwelling.&#8221;</p>
<p>WLR Daily, 13th April 2011</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.iclr.co.uk/">www.iclr.co.uk</a></p>
<p><em>Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2011/04/jenson-and-another-v-faux-wlr-daily/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and others &#8211; WLR Daily</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2011/04/baker-v-quantum-clothing-group-ltd-and-others-wlr-daily/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2011/04/baker-v-quantum-clothing-group-ltd-and-others-wlr-daily/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:31:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[health & safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law reports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[noise]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statutory duty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://innertemplelibrary.wordpress.com/?p=50676</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and others [2011] UKSC 17;  [2011] WLR (D)  132 &#8220;A workplace could be unsafe for the purposes of section 29(1) of the Factories Act 1961 if operations constantly and regularly carried on in it made it so. Section 29(1) applied to the risk of noise-induced hearing loss arising from such activities in [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cases.iclr.co.uk/Subscr/search.aspx?path=WLR Dailies/WLRD 2011/wlrd2011-132">Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and others [2011] UKSC 17;  [2011] WLR (D)  132</a></p>
<p>&#8220;A workplace could be unsafe for the purposes of section 29(1) of the Factories Act 1961 if operations constantly and regularly carried on in it made it so. Section 29(1) applied to the risk of noise-induced hearing loss arising from such activities in relation to long-term employees. Safety had to be judged according to the general knowledge and standards of the time.&#8221;</p>
<p>WLR Daily, 13th April 2011</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.iclr.co.uk/">www.iclr.co.uk</a></p>
<p><em>Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2011/04/baker-v-quantum-clothing-group-ltd-and-others-wlr-daily/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>George Osborne to be investigated by watchdog over cuts &#8211; The Guardian</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2010/11/george-osborne-to-be-investigated-by-watchdog-over-cuts-the-guardian/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2010/11/george-osborne-to-be-investigated-by-watchdog-over-cuts-the-guardian/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Nov 2010 09:32:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[budgets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[equality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government departments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statutory duty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://innertemplelibrary.wordpress.com/?p=43074</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Equality commission set to launch formal assessment into the Treasury&#8217;s conduct prior to last month&#8217;s spending review.&#8221; Full story The Guardian, 26th November 2010 Source: www.guardian.co.uk]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Equality commission set to launch formal assessment into the Treasury&#8217;s conduct prior to last month&#8217;s spending review.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/26/george-osborne-investigated-equality-watchdog">Full story</a></p>
<p>The Guardian, 26th November 2010</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">www.guardian.co.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2010/11/george-osborne-to-be-investigated-by-watchdog-over-cuts-the-guardian/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>R (Friends of the Earth and another) v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change – WLR Daily</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2009/08/r-friends-of-the-earth-and-another-v-secretary-of-state-for-energy-and-climate-change-wlr-daily/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2009/08/r-friends-of-the-earth-and-another-v-secretary-of-state-for-energy-and-climate-change-wlr-daily/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 09:53:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judicial review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law reports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ministers' powers and duties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statutory duty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://innertemplelibrary.wordpress.com/?p=24192</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[R (Friends of the Earth and another) v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change [2009] EWCA Civ 810; [2009] WLR (D) 276 &#8220;On an application for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s alleged failure to take steps to implement targets specified in the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 and the [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.lawreports.co.uk/WLRD/2009/CACiv/R_v_Sec_State_Energy_Climate_Change.html">R (Friends of the Earth and another) v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change [2009] EWCA Civ 810; [2009] WLR (D) 276</a></p>
<p>&#8220;On an application for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s alleged failure to take steps to implement targets specified in the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 and the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy, and in particular for eliminating fuel poverty &#8216;as far as reasonably practicable&#8217;, where the legal obligation on the Secretary of State had been defined in terms of effort and endeavour, arguments as to the desirability of the Government’s policy on the use of available money were not apt to found an argument of breach of statutory duty and judicial review, absent a rationality challenge.&#8221;</p>
<p>WLR Daily, 31st July 2009</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.lawreports.co.uk">www.lawreports.co.uk</a></p>
<p><em>Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2009/08/r-friends-of-the-earth-and-another-v-secretary-of-state-for-energy-and-climate-change-wlr-daily/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Devenish Nutrition Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis SA (France) and Others &#8211; Times Law Reports</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2008/11/devenish-nutrition-ltd-v-sanofi-aventis-sa-france-and-others-times-law-reports/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2008/11/devenish-nutrition-ltd-v-sanofi-aventis-sa-france-and-others-times-law-reports/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 09:39:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law reports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statutory duty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://innertemplelibrary.wordpress.com/?p=13271</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Devenish Nutrition Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis SA (France) and Others Court of Appeal &#8220;An account of profits could not be awarded on a claim for a nonproprietary tort.&#8221; The Times, 4th November 2008 Source: www.timesonline.co.uk Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/reports/article5075993.ece">Devenish Nutrition Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis SA (France) and Others</a></p>
<p>Court of Appeal</p>
<p>&#8220;An account of profits could not be awarded on a claim for a nonproprietary tort.&#8221;</p>
<p>The Times, 4th November 2008</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk">www.timesonline.co.uk</a></p>
<p><em>Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2008/11/devenish-nutrition-ltd-v-sanofi-aventis-sa-france-and-others-times-law-reports/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Devenish Nutrition Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis SA (France) and others &#8211; WLR Daily</title>
		<link>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2008/10/devenish-nutrition-ltd-v-sanofi-aventis-sa-france-and-others-wlr-daily/</link>
		<comments>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2008/10/devenish-nutrition-ltd-v-sanofi-aventis-sa-france-and-others-wlr-daily/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 08:57:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sally</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EC law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law reports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statutory duty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://innertemplelibrary.wordpress.com/?p=12225</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Devenish Nutrition Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis SA (France) and others [2008] EWCA Civ 1086; [2008] WLR (D) 317 &#8220;An account of profits could not be awarded on a claim for a non-proprietary tort. Community law neither prevented nor required the recognition in domestic law of a restitutionary award as a remedy for breach of statutory duty.&#8221; [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span class="bodyboldblue"><a href="http://www.lawreports.co.uk/WLRD/2008/CACiv/oct0.5.htm">Devenish Nutrition Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis SA (France) and others [2008] EWCA Civ 1086; <span class="bodycentre">[2008] WLR (D) 317</span></a></span></p>
<p><span class="bodyboldblue">&#8220;<span class="bodyblue">An account of profits could not be awarded on a claim for a non-proprietary tort. Community law neither prevented nor required the recognition in domestic law of a restitutionary award as a remedy for breach of statutory duty.&#8221;</span></span></p>
<p><span class="bodyblue">WLR Daily, 16th October 2008</span></p>
<p><span class="bodyblue">Source: <a href="http://www.lawreports.co.uk">www.lawreports.co.uk</a></span></p>
<p><span class="bodyblue"><em>Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.</em><br />
</span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.innertemplelibrary.com/2008/10/devenish-nutrition-ltd-v-sanofi-aventis-sa-france-and-others-wlr-daily/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
