‘Businesses can replicate the way a rivals’ computer program operates by interpreting how it functions from reading user manuals or other accompanying documents their rivals produce without infringing copyright, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd November 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
‘This was an an application for permission to appeal a judicial review decision on the interrelation of s.17 Children Act 1989, s.11 Children Act 2004 and the Housing Act 1996 parts 6 and 7.’
NearlyLegal, 24th November 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
‘Upper Tribunal has just issued judgment in Central London Community Healthcare NHS Trust v Information Commissioner [2013] UKUT 0551. This significant decision is the first time the Upper Tribunal has considered an appeal against a monetary penalty notice (“MPN”), issued by the Commissioner under section 55A Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA”).’
Panopticon, 21st November 2013
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘A dispute over the alleged infringement of a standard-essential mobile technology European patent will be ruled on by the High Court despite there being ongoing proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO) about whether the patent is valid.’
OUT-LAW.com, 21st November 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A European arrest warrant issued by a government ministry in respect of a convicted person with a view to his or her arrest and extradition could be regarded as issued by a judicial authority for the purposes of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA— and Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 which gave effect to it in the United Kingdom— if the ministry had only issued the warrant at the request of and by way of endorsement of a decision that the issue of such a warrant was appropriate made by the court responsible for the sentence or some other person or body properly regarded as a judicial authority responsible for its execution. A ministry which had power to issue an European arrest warrant of its own motion and had done so, or which had issued a warrant at the request of a non-judicial authority, including an executive agency such as a prison department, could not be regarded as a judicial authority for those purposes.’
WLR Daily, 20th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The words “an advertisement which is directed towards a political end”, in section 321(2)(b) of the Communications Act 2003, invited attention to the subject-matter of the advertisement, and not the motives and intentions of the advertiser unless those intentions were expressed or were implicit in the language of the advertisement itself. An objective examination of the text of the advertisement alone was required, and the word “political” should not be given a narrow and artificially restrictive interpretation given the wide scope of the examples provided in section 321(3).’
WLR Daily, 19th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A hunger striker who is “near death” has failed to win temporary freedom pending his appeal court challenge to being held in an immigration detention centre.’
The Independent, 21st November 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Supreme Court, 20th November 2013
Regina v Sakalauskas [2013] WLR (D) 442
“‘Any article’ in section 6(1) of the Fraud Act 2006 meant any article the defendant had with him for the purpose or intention of using in the course of or in connection with any fraud and use necessarily related to use in the future and not articles which had been used in the past.”
WLR Daily, 15th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Aspinalls Club Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs 2013 EWCA Civ 1464; [2013] WLR (D) 441
“For the purposes of section 11 of the Finance Act 1997, when calculating the ‘gross gaming yield’ from gaming taking place on a gaming club’s premises, commissions and rebates paid and allowed by the gambling club to its customers under incentive schemes there were not to be taken into account as reducing the amount of ‘banker’s profits’ from dutiable gaming.”
WLR Daily, 15th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Fields and others [2013] EWCA Crim 2042; [2013] WLR (D) 440
“In a joint benefit case, where each defendant was found to have obtained the joint benefit, he was not required by a confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to disgorge benefit he had not obtained and a confiscation order made in the amount matching the correctly assessed benefit, was not disproportionate.”
WLR Daily, 14th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Nicola Phillipson, Zenith Chambers, examines the case of Berger v Berger where the Court of Appeal refused permission to the appellant to bring a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 almost six years out of time.”
Zenith Chambers, 5th November 2013
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
“On 9th June 2010, Lewis Pierce, a 9 year old schoolboy at the time, was playing with his younger brother George in their school playground. There was a metal water fountain fixed to the external wall of the school which could be accessed from the playground. In the course of play George sprayed his elder brother with water from the fountain, causing Lewis to swing a punch at George. George was able to evade the punch but as a result Lewis connected with the water fountain, causing lacerations to his right thumb and damage to his tendons. Lewis made a good recovery from the injuries sustained.”
Zenith Chambers, 28th October 2013
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
“The Court of Appeal’s decision (11 October 2013) in Coppage v Safety Net Security to uphold as reasonable and enforceable a 6 month non-solicitation restrictive covenant is surprising because of the fact that the covenant covered all customers during the period of Mr Coppage’s employment. In modern times the general advice had been that such covenants should be restricted to those who had been customers in a fixed period prior to termination (‘look back’ requirement) and to be confined to those with whom the employee had had personal dealings.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 21st October 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“An increasing number of reports are emerging of hardline decisions by district judges over non-compliance with the CPR or breach of orders and directions.”
Litigation Futures, 19th November 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
“Andrew Pack, care lawyer with Brighton and Hove City Council, considers the options for local authorities in the wake of the Court of Appeal’s landmark judgment in W (A Child) v Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 1227.”
Family Law Week, 17th November 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024