Innovative start-ups and the importance of getting the paperwork right – Technology Law Update

Posted January 15th, 2016 in assignment, contracts, law firms, negligence, news, patents by sally

‘A dispute over an unsuccessful start-up turns messy, but clears up a point of confusion over patent assignments.’

Full story

Technology Law Update, 14th January 2016

Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk

Assignment and Ignored Instructions – Littleton Chambers

Posted July 25th, 2015 in assignment, news, transfer of undertakings, unfair dismissal by sally

‘It has long been accepted that the issue of whether an employee is “assigned” to an undertaking or part of an undertaking (and thus is subject to a relevant transfer for the purposes of the TUPE Regulations 2006) is a difficult and multifactorial question the outcome of which can often be difficult to predict.’

Full story

Littleton Chambers, 18th July 2015

Source: www.littletonchambers.com

BESTrustees plc v Corbett – WLR Daily

Posted June 9th, 2015 in assignment, debts, law reports, pensions, trusts by tracey

BESTrustees plc v Corbett: [2014] EWHC 3038 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 242

‘The trustee or manager of a qualifying occupational pension scheme was entitled to assign a debt arising pursuant to section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995.’

WLR DAily, 16th October 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Judge allows hotel companies to reassign leases without losing benefit of associated guarantees – OUT-LAW.com

Posted January 21st, 2015 in assignment, guarantees, hotels, landlord & tenant, leases, news, third parties by sally

‘A High Court judge has approved arrangements allowing companies within the Hilton group to reassign leases between themselves without the landlord losing the benefit of a guarantee granted by the parent company.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 20th January 2015

Source: www.out-law.com

Fibria Celulose S/A v Pan Ocean Co Ltd and another – WLR Daily

Posted July 4th, 2014 in agency, assignment, contracts, foreign jurisdictions, insolvency, law reports by tracey

Fibria Celulose S/A v Pan Ocean Co Ltd and another: Kim v Fibria Celulose S/A: [2014] EWHC 2124 (Ch); [2014] WLR (D) 288

‘The relief available under article 21(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, as scheduled to the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1030), upon recognition by the English court of a foreign insolvency proceeding was limited to such relief as it would be open to the court to grant in domestic insolvency proceedings.’

WLR Daily, 30th June 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Performing Right Society Ltd v B4U Network (Europe) Ltd – WLR Daily

Posted October 21st, 2013 in appeals, artistic works, assignment, copyright, law reports by sally

Performing Right Society Ltd v B4U Network (Europe) Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1236; [2013] WLR (D) 385

“Where a composition fell within the terms of an agreement assigning copyright to the Performing Right Society the effect of section 2(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 was to vest copyright in the society as soon as the work was created, notwithstanding an agreement with those commissioning the work which purported to assign to them all rights in future works.”

WLR Daily, 16th October 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

The Importance of Being Earnest – NearlyLegal

“We have seen Santander having trouble in mortgage possession proceedings in Northern Ireland recently. Here is another example which could perhaps, indeed maybe should, have been avoided, if the lender had actually taken proceedings sufficiently seriously.”

Full story

NearlyLegal, 11th October 2013

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Link Financial Ltd v Jones – WLR Daily

Posted August 24th, 2012 in assignment, consumer credit, debts, law reports by sally

Link Financial Ltd v Jones [2012] EWHC 2402 (QB); [2012] WLR (D) 251

“A legal assignee of the debt due under a regulated consumer credit agreement which had given notice of the assignment to the debtor was a “creditor” within the meaning of section 189 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and entitled to bring proceedings to recover the debt.”

WLR Daily, 22nd August 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

F-Tex SIA v Lietuvos-Anglijos UAB „Jadecloud-Vilma“ – WLR Daily

F-Tex SIA v Lietuvos-Anglijos UAB „Jadecloud-Vilma“; (Case C-213/10);  [2012] WLR (D)  123

“Where a liquidator assigned a claim to have a transaction set aside derived from the national law applicable to the insolvency proceedings, the claim subsequently made by the assignee against a third party to have the transaction set aside came within the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L12, p1) and was no longer covered by the exception in article 2(b) for insolvency proceedings.”

WLR Daily, 19th April 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Smith and another v Jafton Properties Ltd – WLR Daily

Posted November 4th, 2011 in assignment, enfranchisement, law reports, leases by tracey

Smith and another v Jafton Properties Ltd; [2011] EWCA Civ 1251;  [2011] WLR (D)  314

“At common law an assignment of part of a leased property by which the leased property was physically severed had the effect that the holder of each severed part had privity of estate with the landlord only in respect of that severed part. In short, as a holder only of part of the land, he was the tenant of that severed part only.”

WLR Daily, 2nd November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Simpson (as assignee of Alan Catchpole) v Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust – WLR daily

Posted October 20th, 2011 in appeals, assignment, law reports, third parties by tracey

Simpson (as assignee of Alan Catchpole) v Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust [2011] EWCA Civ 1149;  [2011] WLR (D)  294

“A claim for damages for personal injury was a chose in action capable of assignment. The law would not, however, recognise on the grounds of public policy an assignment to a party who did not have sufficient interest to support what would otherwise be a bare right of action.”

WLR Daily, 12th October 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

K/S Victoria Street v House of Fraser (Stores Management) Ltd and others – WLR Daily

Posted August 1st, 2011 in assignment, covenants, law reports, leases by tracey

K/S Victoria Street v House of Fraser (Stores Management) Ltd and others [2011] EWCA Civ 904;  [2011] WLR (D)  265

“Any contractual arrangement contained in a tenancy (or a prior agreement ), which imposed an obligation on an existing or prospective guarantor of the tenant’s liabilities to guarantee the liabilities of a future assignee, would be void by reason of section 25(1) of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 because it frustrated the operation of section 24(2) of that Act, by which the original tenant’s guarantor was released from his obligation on the assignment of the tenancy. Similarly, a contractual arrangement contained in a later document, for instance, a renewal obligation imposed on a guarantor of an assignee’s liabilities in an assignment or a licence to assign, would be invalid.”

WLR Daily, 27th July 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Crosstown Music Co 1, LLC v Rive Droite Music Ltd and others – WLR Daily

Posted November 5th, 2010 in assignment, contracts, copyright, law reports, news by sally

Crosstown Music Co 1, LLC v Rive Droite Music Ltd and others [2010] EWCA Civ 1222 ; [2010] WLR (D) 277

“An assignment of copyright which was subject to automatic reverter in the event of an unremedied notified material breach of contract prior to the expiration of the period of copyright was permitted by s 90 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.”

WLR Daily, 3rd November 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Shanks v Unilever plc and others – WLR Daily

Posted December 7th, 2009 in assignment, compensation, law reports, patents by sally

Shanks v Unilever plc and others [2009] EWHC 3164 (Ch); [2009] WLR (D) 354

“The words ‘that person’ in s 41(2) of the Patents Act 1977 referred to a notional non-connected counterparty operating in the appropriate market at the appropriate time.”

WLR Daily, 4th December 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Lewis and another v Metropolitan Property Realisations Ltd – WLR Daily

Lewis and another v Metropolitan Property Realisations Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 448; [2009] WLR (D) 189

“The word ‘realise’ in the context of s 283A(3)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986 was not, in its context, capable of covering a transaction where there was deferred monetary consideration during the period before that consideration came in, so that a bankrupt’s interest in property that had formerly vested jointly in him and his wife revested in him on the third anniversary of his bankruptcy despite his trustee in bankruptcy having assigned that interest to a creditor by way of an agreement for consideration of £1 and 25% of any eventual sale of the interest.”

WLR Daily, 17th June 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Pickthall Ltd v Hill Dickinson LLP and another – WLR Daily

Pickthall Ltd v Hill Dickinson LLP and another [2009] EWCA Civ 543; [2009] WLR (D) 183

“It was an abuse of process for a party to issue proceedings on the day before the limitation period expired in the knowledge that the cause of action was vested not in him but in his trustee in bankruptcy, despite the party’s intention of later seeking an assignment of the cause of action and amending the claim form so that the assignment (which had been obtained after the expiration of the limitation period) could be pleaded.”

WLR Daily, 12th June 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Doleman v Shaw – Times Law Reports

Posted April 22nd, 2009 in assignment, leases, news, winding up by sally

Doleman v Shaw

Court of Appeal

“When a liquidator disclaimed a lease, that did not determine any liability under the lease of the original lessee or of the guarantor in relation to leases or assignments of the leases executed after the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 had come into force on January 1, 1996, although the liability of the insolvent assignee company had ceased after the disclaimer.”

The Times, 22nd April 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Hatzl and Another v XL Insurance Co Ltd – Times Law Reports

Posted April 16th, 2009 in assignment, carriage of goods, insurance, jurisdiction, law reports by sally

Hatzl and Another v XL Insurance Co Ltd

Court of Appeal

“On a proper construction of article 31(1)(a) of the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, scheduled to the Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965, a dispute did not become justiciable in England merely by the fact that an assignor of one of the contracting parties happened to be domiciled in England if that was the only connection with the jurisdiction.”

The Times, 16th April 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Doleman v Shaw – WLR Daily

Posted April 3rd, 2009 in assignment, law reports, leases, winding up by sally

Doleman v Shaw [2009] EWCA Civ 283; [2009] WLR (D) 115

On a true construction of s 178(4) of the Insolvency Act 1986, on the disclaimer of a lease by a liquidator, although the company ceased to be bound by the tenant covenants so far as its own obligations were concerned, it was treated as still bound so far as third party obligations were concerned.”

WLR Daily, 1st April 2009

source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

 

Hatzl and another v XL Insurance Co Ltd – WLR Daily

Posted March 20th, 2009 in assignment, carriage of goods, insurance, jurisdiction, law reports by sally

Hatzl and another v XL Insurance Co Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 223; [2009] WLR (D) 99

The word ‘defendant’ in art 31(1)(a) of the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road should be interpreted purposively so as to extend to the parties to the contract and to other parties to whom the convention ascribed rights and duties, but not to include an assignee, even if he was also an insurer. An assignee of rights under the convention was to be treated as standing in the shoes of his assignor. He had no different rights to be sued in a particular forum than his assignor.”

WLR Daily, 19th March 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in once of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.