Those who settle claims “with eyes wide open” cannot revive them, appeal judges tell insurer – Litigation Futures

Posted April 2nd, 2015 in insurance, misrepresentation, news, personal injuries by sally

‘An insurer cannot use the law of misrepresentation to unpick a personal injury settlement made with its “eyes wide open”, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 1st April 2015

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

ATE insurer not estopped from avoiding policy, High Court rules – Litigation Futures

Posted February 19th, 2015 in costs, estoppel, fraud, insolvency, insurance, misrepresentation, news by sally

‘After-the-event (ATE) insurer Temple Legal Protection was not estopped from avoiding payment on a policy after a fraudulent misrepresentation, the High Court has ruled.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 18th February 2015

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Rihanna and image rights – Law Society’s Gazette

‘The singer’s recent trademark win over Topshop isn’t necessarily good news for celebrity claimants; each case will be taken on its merits.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 3rd February 2015

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Topshop ordered to pay Rihanna’s legal costs – Daily Telegraph

Posted February 3rd, 2015 in appeals, costs, intellectual property, misrepresentation, news by sally

‘Topshop has been ordered to pay pop star Rihanna’s legal costs following their multi-million pound battle over a T-shirt. The high-street store lost the dispute when both the High Court and Court of Appeal declared Topshop had used her image unlawfully on a “tank” sleeveless T-shirt sold to thousands of fans.’

Full story

Daily Telegraph, 3rd February 2015

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

Court of Appeal upholds Birss J in Rihanna’s Case – NIPC Law

Posted January 27th, 2015 in appeals, intellectual property, misrepresentation, news, trade marks by sally

‘In Fenty and Others v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd and another [2013] EWHC 2310 (Ch), [2013] WLR(D) 310 Mr Justice Birss gave judgment to Robyn Rihanna Fenty (better known as Rihanna) and her corporate licensing companies against Top Shop for selling a t-shirt that reproduced a photo of the singer. The claim was brought not for infringement of copyright since the owner of the copyright in the photograph had licensed the reproduction of his work but for passing off. Rihanna and her companies had claimed that the t-shirt misrepresented authorization or approval of the manufacture and distribution of the garments and that such misrepresentation damaged her commercial activities. I wrote about the case in Passing off – Fenty v Topshop 10 Sept 2013 and readers are referred to that note for an appreciation of the judgment.’

Full story

NIPC Law, 24th January 2015

Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk

A spectacularly Misleading Case – nested in a real one – UK Human Rights Blog

‘Hamblen J observed that “the facts…are so extraordinary that they could have come from one of A.P. Herbert’s “Misleading Cases”. Yes indeed. A solicitor decided to make up three years of litigation, writing some fake judgments, pretending to instruct barristers, and churning out fictitious correspondence.’

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 25th November 2014

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

The knotty problem of Fallopia Japonica – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted November 18th, 2014 in environmental protection, misrepresentation, news, nuisance, sale of land, waste by sally

‘Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia Japonica) was originally introduced to the UK in the 1850s as an ornamental plant and animal feed, but it has spread rapidly and estimates now suggest at least one infestation in every 10km2. Knotweed can grow 3 – 4m in a 10 week growing season, and as little as 0.7 grams of rhizome can produce a new plant within only 10 days. The rhizomes can spread to a depth of 3 metres, and 7 metres horizontally. This strong growth and invasive root system can damage concrete foundations, buildings, roads, paving and retaining walls. For good reason, therefore, Knotweed is described by the Environment Agency as “indisputably the UK’s most aggressive, destructive and invasive plant”.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 10th November 2014

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Fraud divorce case goes to Supreme Court – Law Society’s Gazette

‘The ex-wife of a businessman who claims her former husband cheated her out of millions in their divorce settlement has won the right to take her case to the Supreme Court.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 5th September 2014

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Public and private law wrongs are not the same – Court of Appeal – UK Human Rights Blog

‘ Tchenguiz v. Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2014] EWCA Civ 472, 15 April 2014. This judgment is a neat illustration of how important it is to keep the concepts of public law and private law unlawfulness separate – they do not necessarily have the same legal consequences.’

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 15th April 2014

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

Senior police officer faces jail after fraud scam – Daily Telegraph

‘A senior police officer has been sacked and could face a jail sentence after she was caught scamming high street stores out of hundreds of pounds. Tanya Brookes was a chief inspector at Surrey Police when she committed “an extensive range of petty frauds” against household names including The White Company and Boots.’

Full story

Daily Telegraph, 10th March 2014

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

Food for thought: is an unauthorised photo of your restaurant meal an IP breach? – Legal Week

Posted February 19th, 2014 in consent, food, intellectual property, internet, misrepresentation, news, photography by sally

‘I do it. My friends do it. And I suspect that you’ve occasionally done it. It is what is colloquially referred to as ‘food porn’ – the salivating over restaurant menus online in preparation for a meal and then, depending on your social media connectedness, the Instagram shot of what you are about to devour.

One would think the broadcasting of delicious delicacies by diners would be welcomed by chefs and restaurateurs as free advertising of their wares. Not so. France TV Info reports that Gilles Goujon, who operates a three-starred restaurant called L’Auberge du vieux Puits in the south of France declares that such activities are not only poor etiquette (fair enough) but, when his dishes appear online, it takes away “a little bit of my intellectual property”. The BBC reports that another chef in La Madelaine-sous-Montreuil in the north of France has also inserted a ‘no camera’ provision on his menus.’

Full story

Legal Week, 18th February 2014

Source: www.legalweek.co.uk

Cramaso LLP v Ogilvie-Grant (Earl of Seafield) and others – WLR Daily

Cramaso LLP v Ogilvie-Grant (Earl of Seafield) and others [2014] UKSC 9; [2014] WLR (D) 64

‘A contracting party could be liable in negligence for a representation made in pre-contractual negotiations which induced the conclusion of the contract by someone other than the original representee.’

WLR Daily, 12th February 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Cramaso LLP (Appellant) v Ogilvie-Grant, Earl of Seafield and Others (Respondents) (Scotland) – Supreme Court

Cramaso LLP (Appellant) v Ogilvie-Grant, Earl of Seafield and Others (Respondents) (Scotland) [2014] UKSC 9 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 12th February 2014

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

When to plead fraud – Barristers’ Hub

Posted February 3rd, 2014 in enforcement, fraud, misrepresentation, news, pleadings, time limits by sally

‘Pleading fraud is not to be done lightly, and there can be significant adverse consequences of doing so inappropriately. Equally, however, failing to plead fraud where appropriate can deprive a party to litigation of the opportunity to succeed on a point which might be decisive in that party’s favour, and successfully alleging fraud can have very beneficial consequences in terms of liability, remedy and enforcement. This article is intended to provide a brief overview of factors that should be weighed when deciding whether to plead fraud in any given (civil) claim.’

Full story

Barristers’ Hub, 31st January 2014

Source: www.barristershub.co.uk

Third time unlucky for solicitor as High Court rejects challenge to strike-off – Legal Futures

‘It was third time unlucky for a solicitor whose striking-off had twice been overturned by the High Court, as Mr Justice Mostyn yesterday rejected his challenge to the latest decision to remove him from the roll.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 21st November 2013

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Rihanna takes on Topshop: Get my face off that t-shirt! – OUP Blog

Posted November 18th, 2013 in consent, copyright, misrepresentation, news, privacy, trade marks by sally

“Robyn Fenty — Rihanna to most of us — enjoyed victory in the English High Court earlier this year when she succeeded in stopping High Street fashion retailer Topshop from selling an unauthorised t-shirt bearing her image. 12,000 units of this t-shirt were sold, most at £22 each.”

Full story

OUP Blog, 15th November 2013

Source: www.blog.oup.com

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

Website’s driving test claims banned by ASA – Daily Telegraph

Posted September 19th, 2013 in advertising, driving licences, misrepresentation, news by sally

“A driving theory test advert that claimed a charge of £31 but levied nearly £50 has been banned. It follows a move to block adverts from websites that charge for the traveller EHIC card, which is free from the NHS.”

Full story

Daily Telegraph, 18th September 2013

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

Passing off – Fenty v Topshop – NIPC Law

Posted September 10th, 2013 in intellectual property, misrepresentation, news, photography, sale of goods by sally

“Mr. Justice Birss summarized the issues in Fenty and Others v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (t/a Topshop) and Another [2013] EWHC 2310 (Ch), [2013] WLR(D) 310 admirably in paragraph [1] of his judgment in that case: ‘Topshop is a well known fashion retailer. Rihanna is a famous pop star. In March 2012 Topshop started selling a t-shirt with an image of Rihanna on it. The image was a photograph taken by an independent photographer. Topshop had a licence from the photographer but no licence from Rihanna. Rihanna contends that the sale of this t-shirt without her permission infringes her rights. Topshop does not agree. This action is the result.’ ”

Full story

NIPC Law,  10th September 2013

Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk

Rihanna wins Topshop T-shirt court case – BBC News

Posted August 1st, 2013 in intellectual property, misrepresentation, news, photography by sally

“Pop singer Rihanna has won a legal battle with clothing retailer Topshop over a T-shirt bearing her image.”

Full story

BBC News, 31st July 2013

Source: www.bbc.co.uk