Results: 122

• Karen Millen Fashions Ltd v Dunnes Stores

  19 Jun 2014 (Case C-345/13); EU:C:2014:2013; [2014] Bus LR 756; [2014] 2 All ER (Comm) 443; [2014] WLR (D) 273, ECJ

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive; most recently considered: 2017. Subsequent citations: 8.
  DESIGN — Unregistered Community design — Validity

  EUROPEAN UNION — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Community design
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  DESIGN — Unregistered Community design — Validity — Requirement that design possess individual character in comparison with other designs — Presumption of validity where certain conditions satisfied — Whether assessment of character to be made by reference to earlier individualised designs or by amalgam of specific features of earlier designs — Whether presumption of validity applying only if design proven to have individual character — Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, arts 6, 85(2)

  EUROPEAN UNION — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Community design — Article 6 — Individual character — Different overall impression — Article 85(2) — Unregistered Community design — Validity — Conditions — Burden of proof

  1 EU Enactment considered

• Richmond Pharmacology Ltd v Chester Overseas Ltd

  01 Aug 2014 [2014] EWHC 2692 (Ch); [2014] Bus LR 1110; [2014] WLR (D) 365, Ch D (Stephen Jourdan QC sitting as a deputy High Court judge)

  10 Nov 2014 [2014] EWHC 3418 (Ch); [2014] CN 1970, Ch D (Stephen Jourdan QCsitting as a deputy High Court judge)

  Subsequent citations: 8.
  COSTS — Order for costs — Indemnity basis

  COMPANY — Director — Breach of duty
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  COSTS — Order for costs — Indemnity basis — Whether claim having requisite level of unreasonableness — Whether order for indemnity costs to be made

  COMPANY — Director — Breach of duty — First defendant company having minority shareholding in claimant company — Second and third defendants appointed by first defendant to claimants’ board of directors — First defendant marketing its minority holding in claimant to third parties — Whether in course of marketing shares first defendant disclosing claimant’s confidential information to third parties — Whether breaching obligations to claimant under shareholder agreement — Test for determining whether director in breach of general statutory duties — Whether by causing first defendant to breach agreement second and third defendants breaching statutory and equitable duties owed to claimant — Whether claimant estopped from asserting that defendants in breach of duties — Companies Act 2006, ss 172, 174, 175

  2 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered
• Coty Germany GmbH v First Note Perfumes NV

  05 Jun 2014 (Case C-360/12); EU:C:2013:764; EU:C:2014:1318; [2014] Bus LR 1294; [2014] WLR (D) 243, ECJ

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; 2 neutral. Subsequent citations: 20.
  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction under Council Regulation — Community trade mark

  EUROPEAN UNION — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulations (EC) Nos 40/94 and 44/2001
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction under Council Regulation — Community trade mark — Defendant Belgian company producing counterfeit perfumes — Defendant selling counterfeit perfumes in Belgium to German trader which resold them in Germany — Trade mark proprietor bringing proceedings in Germany against defendant but not German trader for trade mark infringement and unfair competition — Whether defendant participating in act of infringement in Germany thereby giving German courts jurisdiction to hear infringement claim — Whether harmful event occurring in Germany for purposes of special jurisdiction — Whether damage occurring in Germany — Whether German courts having special jurisdiction — Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94, art 93(5) — Council Regulation(EC) No 44/2001, art 5(3)

  EUROPEAN UNION — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulations (EC) Nos 40/94 and 44/2001 — Community trade mark — Article 93(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — International jurisdiction relating to infringement — Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred — Cross-border participation by several persons in a single unlawful act

  3 Case(s) considered

  2 EU Enactments considered
• In re Storm Funding Ltd

  18 Dec 2013 [2013] EWHC 4019 (Ch); [2014] Bus LR 454; [2013] WLR (D) 502, Ch D (David Richards J)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 4.
  INSOLVENCY — Administration — Distribution of assets
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  INSOLVENCY — Administration — Distribution of assets — Pensions regulator issuing contribution notices against multiple target companies — Whether permissible that aggregate sum specified in notices greater than shortfall sum — Pensions Act 2004, ss 47, 48

  1 Statute considered
• In re Portsmouth City Football Club Ltd (Neumans LLP v Andronikou)

  02 Nov 2012 [2012] EWHC 3088 (Ch); [2013] Bus LR 374; [2013] 1 All ER 975; [2012] WLR (D) 310, Ch D (Morgan J)

  24 Jul 2013 [2013] EWCA Civ 916; [2013] Bus LR 1152; [2014] 1 All ER 12; [2013] WLR (D) 301, CA

  10 Mar 2014 (appn dis) [2014] Bus LR 354, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive. Subsequent citations: 10.
  INSOLVENCY — Winding up — Expenses of liquidation

  INSOLVENCY — Administration — Expenses of administration
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  INSOLVENCY — Winding up — Expenses of liquidation — Company instructing solicitors in connection with successful application to strike out winding up petition — Solicitors applying for company’s costs to be expense of liquidation — Whether company “person” appearing on petition — Proper approach to awarding company’s costs — Whether costs expense of liquidation — Insolvency Rules 1986, r 4.218(3)(h)

  INSOLVENCY — Administration — Expenses of administration — Solicitors acting for company in connection with winding up petition — Petition suspended on appointment of out of court administrators — Solicitors seeking payment of fees as expense of administration — Whether jurisdiction to order that company pay its own costs of administration out of its assets — Whether order creating necessary disbursement — Whether fees to be treated as administration costs and expenses — Whether court to exercise inherent jurisdiction to order payment of fees — Senior Courts Act 1981, s 51 (as substituted by Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, s 4(1) and amended by Access to Justice Act 1999, s 31) — Insolvency Rules 1986, r 2.67(1)(f)

  14 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statute considered

  2 Statutory Instruments considered
• Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction plc

  23 May 2013 [2013] EWHC 1322 (TCC); [2013] Bus LR 1199; [2013] BLR 417; [2013] WLR (D) 211, QBD (Akenhead J)

  27 Nov 2013 [2013] EWCA Civ 1541; [2014] 1 WLR 1220; [2014] Bus LR 367; [2014] 1 EGLR 5; 151 ConLR 72; [2014] BLR 79; [2013] WLR (D) 463, CA

  15 May 2014 (appn all) [2014] 1 WLR 2218; [2014] Bus LR 711, SC(E)

  17 Jun 2015 [2015] UKSC 38; [2015] 1 WLR 2961; [2015] Bus LR 830; [2015] 4 All ER 482; [2015] 2 All ER (Comm) 965; 160 ConLR 28; [2015] BLR 503; The Times, 22 June 2015; [2015] WLR (D) 261; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive. Subsequent citations: 46.
  ADJUDICATION — Adjudicator’s decision — Finality

  BUILDING — Contract — Adjudication

  CONTRACT — Construction — Implied term
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  ADJUDICATION — Adjudicator’s decision — Finality — Reference of dispute under construction contract — Whether precluding litigation of same dispute — Whether adjudicator’s decision giving rise to separate cause of action with new limitation period — Whether term to be implied to that effect — Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998, Sch, para 23(2)

  BUILDING — Contract — Adjudication — Reference to adjudicator of dispute under construction contract — Adjudicator making award — Whether adjudicator’s decision giving rise to separate cause of action for recovery of payment under award if dispute finally determined in favour of unsuccessful party — Whether term to be implied to that effect — Whether restitutionary right to recovery of any overpayment — Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, s 108 — Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998, Sch, para 23(2)

  CONTRACT — Construction — Implied term — Adjudicator in construction contract dispute making award in defendant’s favour — Claimant making payment in accordance with award — Claim for repayment of sum paid — Defendant counterclaiming for damages in excess of amount awarded by adjudicator — Whether implied term in contract providing claimant with cause of action for repayment if dispute finally determined in his favour — Whether claimant’s cause of action accruing at date of payment made in accordance with adjudicator’s award — Whether defendant’s cause of action accruing at date of breach of contract or duty — Whether claim or counterclaim statute-barred — Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, s 108 — Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998, Sch, para 23(2)

  5 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered

• Tidal Energy Ltd v Bank of Scotland plc

  13 Sep 2013 [2013] EWHC 2780 (QB); [2013] Bus LR 1379; [2013] CN 1405; [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 605, QBD (Judge Havelock-Allan QC)

  31 Jul 2014 [2014] EWCA Civ 1107; [2014] Bus LR 1167; [2015] 2 All ER (Comm) 38; [2015] 2 All ER 15; [2014] 2 CLC 124; The Times, 28 August 2014; [2014] WLR (D) 369; [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 549, CA

  15 Dec 2014 (appn all) [2015] Bus LR 94, SC(E)

  Subsequent citations: 6.
  BANKING — Payment — Liability
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  BANKING — Payment — Liability — Claimant authorising bank to transfer funds electronically to named recipient — Claimant correctly naming intended recipient but giving incorrect account number and sort code — Funds credited to holder of account number and sort code in accordance with usual banking practice governing such transactions — Whether bank entitled to make payment on basis of sort code and account number without reference to account name — Whether liable to re-credit funds to claimant’s account

  3 Case(s) considered
• Fibria Celulose S/A v Pan Ocean Co Ltd (Kim v Fibria Celulose S/A, Pan Ocean Co Ltd v Fibria Celulose S/A)

  30 Jun 2014 [2014] EWHC 2124 (Ch); [2014] Bus LR 1041; [2014] WLR (D) 288, Ch D (Morgan J)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive. Subsequent citations: 8.
  INSOLVENCY — Cross-border insolvency — Foreign proceedings
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  INSOLVENCY — Cross-border insolvency — Foreign proceedings — Shipowner and charterer entering into contract of affreightment governed by English law — Contract providing right of termination by either party on insolvency of other party — Shipowner entering insolvency process in Republic of Korea — Process recognised by Companies Court as foreign main proceedings for purposes of cross-border insolvency law — Shipowner’s administrator contending termination provision unenforceable under Korean insolvency law and applying for order restraining service of termination notice by charterer — Whether service of notice “commencement or continuation of individual actions or individual proceedings” allowing recognising court to grant stay — Whether court having power to apply foreign insolvency law in granting “any appropriate relief” under English Regulations — Whether court restricted to relief available in domestic insolvency proceedings — Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006, Sch 1, art 21(1)

  2 Case(s) considered

  2 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered
• Swift (trading as A Swift Move) v Robertson

  15 Jan 2013 [2012] EWCA Civ 1794; [2013] Bus LR 479; [2013] WLR (D) 11, CA

  13 May 2013 (appn all) [2013] Bus LR 776, SC(E)

  09 Sep 2014 [2014] UKSC 50; [2014] 1 WLR 3438; [2014] Bus LR 1029; [2014] 4 All ER 869; [2014] 2 All ER (Comm) 1083; [2014] WLR (D) 396; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; most recently considered: 2025. Subsequent citations: 26.
  FAIR TRADING — Consumer protection — Contract made in consumer’s home
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  FAIR TRADING — Consumer protection — Contract made in consumer’s home — Trader visiting consumer’s home to prepare estimate for supply of services — Contract concluded on trader’s second visit — Whether consumer protection regulations applying to contract — Whether regulations ultra vires — Whether contract made “during a visit by the trader to the consumer’s home” — Whether contract concluded after more than one visit excluded from regulations — Whether trader’s failure to serve written notice rendering contract unenforceable against consumer — Whether consumer entitled to recover deposit — European Communities Act 1972, s 2(2) — Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007, s 59 — Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc Regulations 2008, regs 2, 5, 7, 10(1) — Council Directive 85/577/EEC, arts 1, 8

  FAIR TRADING — Consumer protection — Contract made in consumer’s home — Trader visiting consumer's home where consumer signing contract for furniture removal — Contrract concluded on trader's second visit — Whether consumer protection regulations applying to contract — Whether regulations ultra vires — Whether contract made "during a visit by the trader to the consumer's home" — Whether contract concluded after more than one visit excluded from regulations — Contract providing for cancellation charge and payment of deposit — Consumer cancelling removal two days later but refusing to pay cancellation charge — Trader bringing action for recovery of charge — Consumer relying on regulations giving right to cancel contract negotiated away from business premises within specied period and counterclaiming for return of deposit — Specified cancellation period defined as seven days from receipt of trader's required written notice of consumer's right to cancel contract — Provision in regulations that contract not enforcable against consumer where written notice not given — Trader having failed to serve written notice rendering contract unenforcable against consumer — Whether absence of notice resulting in no cancellation period having arisen so as to prevent consumer additionally cancelling contract and obtaining return of deposit — European Communities Act 1972, s 2(2) — Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007, s 59 — Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumers Home or Place of Work etc Regulations 2008, regs 2(1), 5, 7(1)(6), 10 (1) — Council Directive 85/577/EEC, Preamble

  1 Case considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  2 EU Enactments considered

  2 Statutes considered

  2 Statutory Instruments considered
• Leidseplein Beheer BV v Red Bull GmbH

  06 Feb 2014 (Case C-65/12); EU:C:2014:49; [2014] Bus LR 280; [2014] WLR (D) 48, ECJ

  Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 23.
  TRADE MARK — Proprietor’s rights — Trade mark with reputation

  EUROPEAN UNION — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  TRADE MARK — Proprietor’s rights — Trade mark with reputation — Claimants registering word as Benelux trade mark for non-alcoholic energy drinks — Defendants using similar sign as trade name for different services before claimants’ mark registered — Claimants’ mark acquiring reputation in Benelux countries — Defendants registering their similar sign as Benelux trade mark for non-alcoholic energy drinks — Claimants bringing infringement proceedings — Concept and scope of “due cause” — Whether prior use in good faith by third party of sign similar to registered mark with a reputation constituting “due cause” — Council Directive 89/104/EEC, art 5(2)

  EUROPEAN UNION — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Rights conferred by a trade mark — Trade mark with a reputation — Protection extended to non-similar goods or services — Use by a third party, without due cause, of a sign identical with or similar to the trade mark with a reputation — Definition of ‘due cause’

  3 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  1 EU Enactment considered