Infobox Court Case name Murphyores Inc Pty Ltdv Commonwealth court High Court of Australia image Australian coat of arms 1912 edit.png date decided April 14, 1976 full name Murphyores Inc Pty Ltdv The Commonwealth of Australia citations http www.austlii.edu.au au cases cth high ct 136clr1.html 1976 136 CLR 1 , http www.austlii.edu.au au cases cth HCA 1976 20.html & 091 1976& 093 HCA 20 judges Garfield Barwick Barwick CJ, Edward McTiernan McTiernan , Harry Gibbs Gibbs , Ninian Stephen Stephen , Anthony Mason judge Mason , Kenneth Jacobs Jacobs & Lionel Murphy Murphy JJ prior actions none subsequent actions none opinions 7 0 Section 112 of the Customs Act 1901 Cth was a constitutionally valid law under the trade and commerce power small per Barwick CJ, McTiernan, Gibbs, Stephen, Mason, Jacobs & Murphy JJ small Murphyores Inc Pty Ltdv Commonwealth 1976 136 Commonwealth Law Reports CLR 1 1976 HCA 20, was a case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the scope of the trade and commerce power in Section 51 i of the Australian Constitution section 51 i of the Australian Constitution Constitution . Background Section 112 of the http www.austlii.edu.au au legis cth consol act ca1901124 Customs Act 1901 Cth prohibited the exportation of mineral sands unless authorised by the Minister. Murphyores Inc Pty Ltd, which held leases from the state of Queensland to mine mineral sands on Fraser Island , sought permission from the Minister to export mineral sands. Such authorisation was withheld pending the outcome of an environmental inquiry. Murphyores challenged the constitutional validity of prohibition and sought an injunction to the study, and a declaration that the Minister cannot make a prohibition for environmental purposes. Decision In a unanimous decision, the court held the legislation was a valid exercise of the trade and commerce power. Section 51 i of the Australian Constitution Section 51 i was a non purposive power, and the only relevant factor was the subject ... more details
SCCInfoBox case name Apotex Inc. v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd. full case name Apotex Inc. and Novopharm Ltd. v. Wellcome Foundation Limited, Glaxo Wellcome Inc., Interpharm Inc. and Allen Barry Shechtman heard date February 14, 2002 decided date December 5, 2002 citations 2002 SCC 77, 2002 4 S.C.R. 153 docket 28287 history Judgment against Apotex in the Federal Court of Appeal . ruling Appeal dismissed. ratio The doctrine of Utility in Canadian patent law sound prediction sound prediction is a valid way of determining the utility of a patent. SCC 2000 2002 Unanimous Binnie J. NotParticipating LawsApplied Apotex Inc. v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd. , 2002 4 S.C.R. 153, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the utility requirement for a patent in Canada. The Court rejected a challenge by the generic drug manufacturers Teva Canada Novopharm and Apotex to declare Glaxo Wellcome s patent for Zidovudine AZT , an AIDS fighting drug, invalid. Background Beginning in 1983, a team at Glaxo Wellcome began researching an anti AIDS drug. The team hoped to develop a chain terminator to halt HIV in the reverse transcription stage of its HIV life cycle. Drugs selected on the basis of their chemical structure were screened starting in 1984. One of the drugs screened at that time is what is now known as Zidovudine AZT . This drug was originally synthesized by cancer researchers in 1964, in a project that was eventually abandoned. Since that time, Glaxo Wellcome had been developing Zidovudine AZT as an anti bacterial. In vitro testing on mouse cells revealed that Zidovudine AZT was potentially effective against AIDS . Glaxo Wellcome was not equipped to do testing of the drug on human cell lines, so it contracted with the National Institutes of Health for this work. In February 1985, the NIH reported the positive results of their screening to Glaxo Wellcome , and, on March 16, 1985, Glaxo Wellcome filed a patent application for a new use of Zidovudine AZT in the United Kingdom. The validity ... more details
Infobox United States District Court Case name Facebook, Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd. court United States District Court for the Northern District of California image imagesize caption full name Facebook, Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd. date decided September 10, 2009 citations http docs.justia.com cases federal district courts california candce 5 2008cv03468 205349 155 No. 08 03468 N.D. Cal. May 4, 2009 transcripts judge Jeremy D. Fogel prior actions subsequent actions You should write this . holding You should also ... , Trade dress , Trademark law , venue law venue Facebook, Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd. , was a federal lawsuit filed on July 18, 2008 by Facebook, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against StudiVZ StudiVZ Ltd. , a UK company with its principal place of business ..., Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd. , No. 08 03468 N.D. Cal. Jul. 18, 2008 http docs.justia.com cases federal district ... in January 2007. ref name deferring Facebook, Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd. , No. 08 03468, 2009 U.S. ..., Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd. , No. 08 03468 N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2008 http docs.justia.com cases federal ... name deferring ref name outline http casesofinterest.com tiki Facebook v. StudiVZ &highlight dispute Facebook, Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd , Inside casesofinterest.com. ref To determine whether to dismiss ... per the parties stipulation. ref name dismissal Facebook, Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd. , No. 08 03468 N.D. ... Facebook, Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd., No. 33 O 374 08, http www.bettinger.de rechtsdatenbank urheberrecht ... history Facebook, Inc. operates a social networking website, that was originally founded ... . ref The same day, Facebook filed a complaint against StudiVZ Ltd., Verlagsgruppe Georg Von Holtzbrinck ... Jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for Forum Non Conveniens filed by Studivz, Ltd. . ref Holtzbrinck Networks GmbH and Holtzbrinck Ventures GmbH ref name Holtzbrinckmotion Facebook, Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd. , No. 08 03468 N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2008 http docs.justia.com cases federal district courts california ... more details
Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. ArgueDate March 29 ArgueYear 2005 DecideDate June 27 DecideYear 2005 FullName Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc., et al. v. Grokster, Ltd ... S. Ct. 686 2004 Subsequent Remanded by MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 17145 ... summary of arguments DEFAULTSORT Mgm Studios, Inc. V. Grokster, Ltd. Category United States Supreme ... LawsApplied United States Copyright Act of 1976 Copyright Act of 1976 MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. Case citation 545 U.S. 913 2005 is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court ... or contracted the Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. Sony Betamax doctrine , however the Court as a whole has not chosen to reexamine the Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. Betamax precedent in the decision, being split into three equal groups. Thus the Betamax ... characterized as a re examination of the issues in Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios , Case ... District of California originally dismissed the case in 2003, citing the Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. Betamax decision . Then a higher court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ... at http www.copyright.gov docs mgm copyright.gov and http www.eff.org IP P2P MGM v Grokster eff.org ... by the MGM Studios v. Grokster Supreme Court decision, Grokster was forced to pay 50 million ... v. Grokster , Mark Gorton , the chief executive officer of the firm that produces LimeWire , has ... Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC , which held that Lime Group LLC induced copyright infringement with its ... External links Wikinews U.S. Supreme Court hears MGM v. Grokster Wikisource http caselaw.lp.findlaw.com ... www.eff.org IP P2P MGM v Grokster 04 480.pdf Copy of the decision from EFF Portable Document Format ... before the Ninth Circuit http www.eff.org IP P2P MGM v Grokster Summary of the case http web.archive.org web 20061016084030 http cyberlaw.stanford.edu about cases mgm v grokster.shtml Stanford ... more details
Educational assignment Infobox COA case Litigants Fujitsu Limited v. Netgear Inc. Court United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit CourtSeal File US CourtOfAppeals FederalCircuit Seal.svg 180px ArgueDate ArgueYear DecideDate September 20 DecideYear 2010 FullName Fujitsu Limited and L.G Electronics and U.S. Philips Corporation v. Netgear Inc. Citations http www.cafc.uscourts.gov images stories opinions orders 10 1045.pdf 587 F.3d 1324 Prior Fujitsu Limited v. Netgear Inc. , No. 07 CV 0710. Subsequent Holding Non infringement in two patents. Infringement of the third patent in four specific models. Judges Alan David Lourie , Daniel Mortimer Friedman , Kimberly Ann Moore Majority Kimberly Ann Moore JoinMajority Concurrence JoinConcurrence Dissent JoinDissent LawsApplied usc 35 271 , usc 35 287 Fujitsu v. Netgear , Inc was a patent infringement case centered around three patents claimed to be required for full compliance of the IEEE 802.11 WiFi standard and the Wireless Multimedia Extensions WiFi Alliance Wireless Multi Media WMM Specification . US patents 4.974,952, 6,018,642, and 6,469,993 were owned by Philips Electronics , Fujitsu , and LG Electronics respectively, and placed in the Via Licensing ref name via cite web title Via Licensing url http www.vialicensing.com licensing ieee 80211 overview.aspx accessdate 2011 09 25 ref pool. The Via Licensing pool claimed to hold all patents required for a complete WiFi WMM implementation. Netgear did not enter an agreement with Via Licensing but produced a series of products that conform to the WiFi standard and WMM Specification. Philips Electronics , Fujitsu , and LG Electronics sued Netgear for patent infringement claiming a complete implementation of the WiFi standard implied violating patents held by Via Licensing pool. When tried in United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin , the court granted summary judgment of non infringement by Netgear for all three patents ref name dstcourt cite ... more details
SCCInfoBox case name Apple Computer, Inc. v. Mackintosh Computers Ltd. Apple Computer, Inc. v. 115778 Canada Inc. full case name Mackintosh Computers Ltd., Compagnie d lectronique Repco Lt e Repco Electronics Co. Ltd., Maison des Semiconducteurs Lt e House of Semiconductors Ltd., Chico Levy and Nat Levy v. Apple Computer, Inc. br 115778 Canada Inc., carrying on business under the firm name and style of Microcom, James Begg and 131375 Canada Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc. heard date February 26, 1990 decided date June 21, 1990 citations 1990 2 S.C.R. 209 docket 20643 docket2 20644 history Judgment for Apple Computer, Inc. in the Federal Court of Appeal Canada Federal Court of Appeal . ruling Appeal dismissed ratio Programs embedded on a Integrated circuit microchip are protected by copyright under the Copyright Act of Canada Copyright Act . SCC 1989 1990 Unanimous Corey J. Majority JoinMajority Concurrence JoinConcurrence Concurrence Dissent JoinConcurrence Dissent Dissent JoinDissent NotParticipating LawsApplied Copyright Act of Canada Apple Computer, Inc . v. Mackintosh Computers Ltd. , is a Canadian case on copyright law regarding the copyrightability of software. The Court found that programs within Read only memory ROM silicon chips in this case, the Autostart ROM and Applesoft BASIC Applesoft in Apple II systems are protected under the Copyright Act of Canada Copyright Act , and the conversion from the source code into object code is a form of translation. The judge held that translation does not include the expression of an idea in another form, but rather only applies to the expression of an idea in another language. A translation has a one to one correspondence between works that are expressed in two different languages. In effect, it should simply be a reproduction ... Apple Inc. litigation Category Canadian copyright case law Category Supreme Court of Canada cases Category Apple Inc. litigation Mackintosh Computers Ltd. Category 1986 in Canada Category 1986 in case ... more details
alleged. ref Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 127 S.Ct. 2499, 2504 05 2007 . ref Tellabs ... Reflist DEFAULTSORT Tellabs, Inc. V. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. Category United States Supreme ...update date November 2010 SCOTUSCase Litigants Tellabs Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights ArgueDate March 28 ArgueYear 2007 DecideDate June 21 DecideYear 2007 FullName Tellabs Incorporated v. Makor Issues & Rights Docket 06 484 CitationNew 551 U.S. 308 127 S. Ct. 2499 166 L. Ed. 2d 681 2007 U.S. LEXIS 15 75 U.S.L.W. 3349 Prior Subsequent Holding To qualify as strong within the intendment of 21D b 2 , we hold, an inference of scienter must be more than merely plausible or reasonable it must be cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference of nonfraudulent intent. SCOTUS 2006 2009 Majority Ginsburg JoinMajority Concurrence Scalia, Alito JoinConcurrence Concurrence2 JoinConcurrence2 Concurrence Dissent JoinConcurrence Dissent Dissent Stevens JoinDissent Dissent2 JoinDissent2 LawsApplied Tellabs Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights , Case citation 551 U.S. 308 2007 , is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on the interpretation of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 s requirement of scienter in a civil action in apply to Tellabs and Makor Issues & Rights. ref http www.oyez.org cases case ?case 2000 2009 2006 2006 06 484 OYEZ article ref The various federal circuits have taken different approaches to defining what it means, under the PSLRA, for a plaintiff to sufficiently plead a strong inference of scienter a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud . The Court ruled a reasonable inference of scienter from assumed true facts was insufficient and inconsistent with Congressional intent. Writing for the Court, Justice Ginsburg wrote that to qualify as strong within the intendment of 21D b 2 , we hold, an inference of scienter must be more than merely plausible or reasonable it must be cogent and at least as compelling ... more details
SCOTUSCase Litigants Wharf Holdings Ltd. v. United Int l Holdings, Inc. ArgueDate March 21 ArgueYear 2001 DecideDate May 21 DecideYear 2001 FullName Wharf Holdings Limited, Petitioners, v. United International Holdings, Incorporated, Respondents USVol 532 USPage 588 Citation 532 U.S. 588 2001 Prior Jury verdict in favor of defendant upheld, 210 F. 3d 1207 10th Cir., 2000 Subsequent Holding An oral agreement to grant an option to buy stock, while secretly intending not to honor the option, violates the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 . Tenth Circuit affirmed. SCOTUS 1994 2005 Majority Breyer JoinMajority unanimous Concurrence JoinConcurrence Dissent JoinDissent Dissent2 Dissent3 LawsApplied Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Wharf Holdings Ltd. v. United Int l Holdings, Inc. , ussc 532 588 2001 , was a Supreme Court of the United States United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned a provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 dealing with manipulating and evading rules set by the Securities and Exchange Commission SEC . The Court concluded that a secret understanding to violate an arrangement under the Act still constituted a violation, rejecting an argument that oral contracts were categorically excluded from the provision s coverage. Background In return for United International Holdings, Inc. s assistance in preparing its application, contracts, system, and financing for a cable television system in Hong Kong, Wharf Holdings Ltd. Oral contract orally granted United an option to buy 10 of stock in the system. ref name BACKGROUND The agreement was never written down. Ultimately, Wharf refused to allow United to exercise its option. United then sued Wharf in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado , claiming that Wharf violated ... 532 588 case.html 532 U.S. at 597. ref External links Caselaw source case Wharf Holdings Ltd. v. United Int l Holdings, Inc. , 532 U.S. 588 2001 findlaw http laws.findlaw.com us 532 588.html justia http ... more details
. DEFAULTSORT Reckitt & Colman Products LtdV Borden Inc Category House of Lords cases Category ...Unreferenced stub auto yes date December 2009 Orphan date December 2009 Reckitt & Colman Ltdv Borden Inc 1990 1 All E.R. 873, &ndash also known as the Jif Lemon case &ndash is a leading decision of the House of Lords on the tort of passing off . The Court reaffirmed the three part test reputation and goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage in order to establish a Claim legal claim of passing off. Background per Jif Lemon LJ Reckitt Benckiser Reckitt , sold lemon juice under the name Jif lemon juice Jif Lemon which came in plastic yellow container that was shaped like a lemon . Borden, a competitor, started to produce lemon juice in a similar lemon shaped plastic container that was only slightly larger with a flattened side. Reckitt sued Borden for passing off their product as Jif Lemon juice. At trial the Court found in favour of Reckitt, which was subsequently upheld at the Court of Appeal of England and Wales Court of Appeal . Opinion of the Court At the House of Lords, the Court upheld the previous judgments. Lord Oliver , at page 880, reaffirmed the classic test for passing off First, he must establish a goodwill or reputation attached to the goods or services which he supplies in the mind of the purchasing public by association with the identifying get up whether it consists simply of a brand name or a trade description, or the individual features of labelling or packaging under which his particular goods or services are offered to the public, such that the get up is recognised by the public as distinctive specifically of the plaintiff s goods or services. Second, he must demonstrate a misrepresentation by the defendant to the public whether or not intentional leading or likely to lead the public to believe that goods or services offered by him are the goods or services ... Kingdom Case law stub See Also Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ... more details
term in Japan for any large ape. ref Sheff 124. ref Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo, Co., Ltd ... City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit July 15, 1986 . Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. cite web title Universal Goes Ape month ... article DEFAULTSORT Universal City Studios, Inc. V. Nintendo Co., Ltd. Category Video game law Category ...Infobox Court Case name Universal v. Nintendo court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York image USDCSDNY.jpg date decided 1984 full name Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. citations 746 F.2d 112 judges Robert W. Sweet prior actions subsequent actions opinions Italic title force true Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. was a case heard by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by Judge Robert W. Sweet . In their complaint, Universal Studios alleged that Nintendo s video game Donkey Kong arcade game Donkey Kong was a trademark infringement of King Kong , the plot and characters of which Universal claimed for their own. Nintendo argued that Universal had themselves proved that King Kong s plot and characters were in the public domain in Universal City Studios, Inc. v. RKO General, Inc. Sweet ruled that Universal had acted in bad faith by threatening Nintendo s licensees and that it had no right over the name King Kong or the characters and story. He further held that there was no possibility for consumers to confuse Nintendo s game and characters with the King Kong films and their characters. Universal ... in Universal City Studios, Inc. v. RKO General Inc., et al. , wherein they proved that the plot of King ... for the likes of PepsiCo, Inc. PepsiCo. , General Foods Corporation General Foods , and Pfizer Inc ... law es Caso Universal City Studios contra Nintendo pt Caso Universal City Studios, Inc. contra Nintendo Co., Ltd. ... more details
scholar case?case 7640267488041819002 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al , Order ... infringement, and unjust enrichment . ref name samsungComplaint Complaint, Apple v. Samsung , CV ... story 25087 Apple Also Manipulated Evidence in Dutch Apple v Samsung Case Apple Also Manipulated Evidence in Dutch Apple v Samsung Case , OS News, osnews.com, 2011 8 19. ref ref name earley ... 10.1 was denied by the Australian High Court. ref name SydneyHighCourt Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc. , NSD1792 2011. Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia Sydney . ref U.S. courts The injunction ... 1 28. ref See also Smartphone patent licensing and litigation Apple Inc. litigation Motorola Mobility v. Apple Inc. References Reflist Navboxes list1 Samsung Electronics Samsung phones Apple iOS Category Apple Inc. litigation Category Lawsuits Category United States lawsuits Category Intellectual ... more details
and notes references DEFAULTSORT Grand Upright Music, Ltd. V. Warner Bros. Records Inc. Category ... copyright infringement. Judge Duffy has been criticized for his opinion in Grand Upright v ... Pages granduprightwarner.aspx The Copyright Infringement Project Grand Upright v. Warner ref Such criticism ... School, Judge Duffy s opinion in Grand Upright v. Warner is an iffy understanding on the part of this judge ... Pages granduprightwarner.aspx The Copyright Infringement Project Grand Upright v. Warner ref Impact ... more details
Unreferenced date May 2007 Technical date November 2009 Vita Food Products Inc. v. Unus Shipping Co. Ltd. , 1939 A.C. 277 P.C. is a leading conflict of law s decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from Nova Scotia . The case stands for the proposition that an express choice of law clause in a contract should be honoured as long as the agreement was bona fide and not against public policy . The case was a landmark point for contract law as it greatly expanded the ability of parties to choose the jurisdiction of their contacts. Background A shipment of herring was sent from Newfoundland separate from Canada at the time to New York, and ran aground in Nova Scotia. The bill of lading did not, however, conform to the Newfoundland Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1932 which required that it contain an express statement that it is to have effect subject to the provisions of the Hague Conference on Private International Law Hague Rules as expressed in this Act. The bill contained a clause exempting the carrier from liability for the Captain nautical master s negligence. Under the Hague Rules such clauses were considered void. The bills stated that it was subject to the Canadian Water Carriage of Goods Act 1910 and stated that This contract shall be governed by English law. During the voyage, the ship sank off Nova Scotia due to negligence. The issue was, which law applied to the bills of lading. Decision of the Council Robert Wright, Baron Wright Lord Wright , writing for the Council, held that the proper law of the contract was England and so the Newfoundland Act did not apply and the contract was upheld. He stated the test for determining the choice of law in such circumstances. quote where there is an express statement by the parties of their intention to select the law of the contract, it is difficult to see what qualifications are possible, provided the intention expressed is bona fide and legal, and provided there is no reason for avoiding the choice ... more details
DRG , a three letter acronym , may refer to DRG London , a Digital Audio Broadcasting multiplex available in the London area DRG Technologies , a company based in Safford, Arizona Democratic Republic of Georgia , 1918 1921, was the first modern establishment of a Republic of Georgia Denver and Rio Grande Railroad Deutsche Reichsbahn Gesellschaft , a predecessor of Deutsche Bahn Diagnosis related group , a system to classify hospital cases Dickinson Robinson Group , British stationery manufacturers Digital raster graphic , a digital image Delaney Rovers GAA , a Gaelic Athletic Association club in Cork, Ireland In biology Dorsal respiratory group , in biology Dorsal root ganglion , in biology disambig cs DRG de DRG fr DRG it DRG sl DRG sv DRG ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Aveling Barford Ltdv Perion Ltd court High Court image caption date decided full name citations 1989 BCLC 626 judges prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts keywords Reduction of capital Aveling Barford Ltdv Perion Ltd 1989 BCLC 626 is a UK company law case concerning reduction of capital . It held that a sale at an undervalue of an asset was a dress up and unlawful reduction of capital. The proper procedure for reduction of capital is now found in CA 2006 sections 641 653. Facts Mr Lee owned and controlled both Aveling Barford Ltd and Perion Ltd. Aveling Barford had a sports ground and with it, residential planning permission, but it did not have enough money to make a distribution to its shareholders. So the property of Aveling Barford was conveyed to Perion for 350,000, when its actual resale value was 1,520,000. Aveling Barford then went into liquidation. The liquidator sued to have Perion be declared a constructive trustee of the resale proceeds price. Judgment Hoffmann J held that it was the director s duty to obtain the full value of the land for Aveling Barford, so Mr Lee was in breach of fiduciary duty . He was, therefore, accountable as a constructive trustee. Whether or not the act was approved by all shareholders was irrelevant since the company cannot return its capital to shareholders without court leave, or following the special procedure. This was a dressed up distribution , it was ultra vires and incapable of validation or ratification. Cquote The rule that capital may not be returned to shareholders is a rule for the protection of creditor s and the evasion of the rule falls within what I think Slade LJ had in mind when he spoke of fraud on creditors. See also Clist shares Clist personality UK company law CA 2006 s 845 Progress Property Co Ltdv Moorgarth Group Ltd 2010 UKSC 55 Notes refs 2 References External links Category United Kingdom company case law Category Grantham ... more details
Infobox Court Case name ICI Ltdv Shatwell court House of Lords image caption date decided full name citations 1965 AC 656 judges prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts keywords Volenti non fit injuria ICI Ltdv Shatwell 1965 AC 656 is a UK labour law case concerning Facts Two shot firing brothers were injured because they could not be bothered to take the mandatory precautions. Judgment Lord Denning MR held that they were not entitled to compensation. See also Clist unfair dismissal UK labour law Unfair dismissal Notes refs 2 References External links Category United Kingdom labour case law Category House of Lords cases Category 1965 in case law Category 1965 in the United Kingdom ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Chartbrook Ltdv Persimmon Homes Ltd court House of Lords image caption date decided full name citations 2009 http www.bailii.org uk cases UKHL 2009 38.html UKHL 38 , 2009 1 A.C. 1101, 2009 3 W.L.R. 267 judges prior actions 2008 EWCA Civ 183, 2008 2 All E.R. Comm 387 subsequent actions opinions Lord Hope, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Rodger, Lord Walker and Baroness Hale transcripts keywords Interpretation Chartbrook Ltdv Persimmon Homes Ltd 2009 http www.bailii.org uk cases UKHL ... v Pim ref Frederick E Rose London Ltdv William H Pim Junior & Co Ltd 1953 2 QB 450 ref document can ... Homes Ltd claimed that a contract it had to develop Chartbrook Ltd s land should be interpreted differently, so that they would be paid more. The contract said Persimmon Ltd was entitled to an Additional ... Court and Court of Appeal agreed with Chartbrook s interpretation. Persimmon Ltd appealed on the interpretation ... it contended that the rule in Prenn v Simmonds ref 1971 1 WLR 1381 ref that pre contractual ... allowed the appeal by Persimmon Ltd, and agreed that properly construed the contract should ... person would understand, following ICS v West Bromwich BS . There was no limit to the amount of red ... also held that, following Prenn v Simmonds , while a theory of objective interpretation could ... a contractual document as in BCCI v Ali ref Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v Ali No 1 2001 UKHL 8, 2002 1 AC 251 ref it remains inadmissible because it is usually irrelevant .... ref Jones v Secretary of State for Social Services 1972 AC 944 ref While the decision of Kerr J in The Karen ... about rectification, it was noted that Joscelyne v Nissen Ref 1970 2 QB 86 ref made rectification ... carry little weight, ref Carmichael v National Power plc 1999 1 WLR 2042 and George Cohen Sons & Co Ltdv Docks and Inland Waterways Executive 1950 84 Ll L Rep. 97 considered ref though unlike a claim regarding ordinary interpretation would not be inadmissible. Here, if Persimmon Ltd had not succeeded ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Rigby v Ferodo Ltd court House of Lords image caption date decided full name citations 1988 ICR 29 judges Lord Bridge, Lord Fraser, Lord Brightman, Lord Ackner and Lord Oliver. prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts keywords Employment contract Rigby v Ferodo Ltd 1988 ICR 29 is a UK labour law case concerning the contract of employment . It held that if an employer reduces wages without a worker s consent, the worker may continue to work and claim the shortfall. Facts Ferodo Ltd cut wages by 5 to stay afloat. The trade union agreed not to strike. Mr Rigby, who worked as a lathe operator on 129 a week with a contract terminable on 12 weeks notice, made it known he did not accept the wage reduction. For him this was approximately 30 a week. He continued to work and after over a year, he claimed for shortfall. The judge held there was a unilateral variation of the contract, which amounted to a breach, and so Mr Rigby was entitled to damages. The Court of Appeal agreed. Ferodo Ltd appealed to the House of Lords. Judgment The House of Lords held that there had been a repudiatory breach of contract by the employer and so Mr Rigby was entitled to claim his shortfall in wages. If the employee continued to work, this did not necessarily imply he accepted the change, nor was it the case that the contract was automatically brought to an end. Moreover because Ferodo Ltd had not in fact terminated the contract the damages that Mr Rigby received could be beyond the 12 week notice period in which the contract could legitimately have been terminated, and a notice of unilateral variation could not be implicitly construed as giving notice of termination. See also Clist employment contract UK labour law Employment contract in English law Autoclenz Ltdv Belcher 2011 http www.bailii.org uk cases UKSC 2011 41.html UKSC 41 Notes refs 2 References External links Category United Kingdom labour case law Category House of Lords cases Category 1988 in case ... more details
Infobox Court Case name OBG Ltdv Allan court House of Lords image date decided full name citations 2007 UKHL 21, 2008 1 AC 1, 2007 2 WLR 920 judges Lord Hoffmann, Lord Nicholls, Lord Walker, Baroness Hale and Lord Brown prior actions 2005 EWCA Civ 106, 2005 QB 762 subsequent actions opinions transcripts keywords Economic tort, interference with a contract OBG Ltdv Allan 2007 http www.bailii.org uk cases UKHL 2007 21.html UKHL 21 was a combined appeal with Douglas v Hello Ltd and Mainstream Properties Ltdv Young and stands as the leading case on economic torts in English law . Facts Lord Hoffmann in his judgment summarised the facts. Cquote In OBG Ltdv Allan 2005 QB 762 the defendants were receivers purportedly appointed under a floating charge which is admitted to have been invalid. Acting in good faith, they took control of the claimant company s assets and undertaking. The claimant says that this was not only a trespass to its land and a conversion law conversion of its chattels but also the tort of unlawful interference with its contractual relations. It claims that the defendants are liable in damages for the value of the assets and undertaking, including the value of the contractual claims, as at the date of their appointment. Alternatively, it says the defendants are liable for the same damages in conversion. In Douglas v Hello Ltd 2006 QB 125 the magazine OK contracted for the exclusive right to publish photographs of a celebrity wedding at which all other photography would be forbidden. The rival magazine Hello published photographs which it knew to have been surreptitiously taken by an unauthorised photographer pretending to be a waiter or guest. OK says that this was interference ... Ltdv Young 2005 IRLR 964 two employees of a property company, in breach of their contracts, diverted ... and 202 . ref See also Economic torts in English law Conversion law Torquay Hotel Co Ltdv Cousins ... ldjudgmt jd070502 obg 1.htm House of Lords judgments page DEFAULTSORT Obg LtdV Allan Category ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Atlasview Ltdv Brightview Ltd court High Court Chancery image date decided full name citations 2004 EWHC 1056 Ch , 2004 2 BCLC 191 judges prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts keywords Unfair prejudice , reflective loss Atlasview Ltdv Brightview Ltd 2004 EWHC 1056 Ch is a UK company law case, which concerns a claim for unfair prejudice now s 994 Companies Act 2006 and raised the question of barring a claim if attempted to recover for reflective loss loss to the company, which also prejudices a member . The case is a notable precedent because it makes clear that a nominee shareholder is also a legitimate petitioner for unfair prejudice. ref L Sealy and S Worthington, Sealy s Cases and Materials in Company Law 9th edn OUP 2010 651 PL Davies , Gower and Davies Principles of Modern Company Law 8th edn Sweet and Maxwell 2008 683. ref Facts Brightview Ltd provided internet services. Its shares were in two classes, X and Y shares. Mr Shalson held the majority of X shares through another company called Reedbest Properties Ltd. Atlasview Ltd controlled the majority of Y shares. Unfortunately, Brightview s business had faltered after it failed to fulfill an immediate demand to repay a loan of 5.24 million from the X shareholders. An Administration law administration order was made. Shortly after, Brightview was sold to another company owned by the X shareholders. Atlasview complained that it with Y shareholders had been unfairly prejudiced under ... protection UK company law Bhullar v Bhullar O Donnell v Shanahan Referred to in judgment Attorney General v Blake 2001 1 AC 268 Re Cade J E & Son Ltd 1991 BCC 360 Re a Company No 005287 of 1985 ... 2 BCC 99,276 Re Elgindata Ltd 1991 BCLC 959 Giles v Rhind 2003 Ch 618 Re Harrison Saul D & Sons plc 1994 BCC 475 Johnson v Gore Wood & Co 2002 2 AC 1 O Neill v Phillips 1999 1 WLR 1092 Rock Nominees Ltdv RCO Holdings plc 2004 BCC 466 Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank ... more details
Infobox company name V Guard Industries Ltd logo caption type traded as nse VGUARD fate predecessor successor foundation 1977 founder Kochouseph Chittilappilly defunct End date YYYY MM DD location city Kochi location country India location locations area served key people industry products Electrical Appliances services revenue operating income net income assets equity owner num employees parent divisions subsid Wonderla , Veegaland homepage URL vguard.in footnotes intl V Guard Industries Ltd is a major electrical appliances manufacturer in India , and the largest in the state of Kerala with an annual turnover of INR 7 billion. ref http www.thehindu.com todays paper tp sports article1684401.ece The Hindu. V Guard turnover. ref ref http www.thehindu.com todays paper tp sports article2297708.ece The Hindu. V Guard registers increase in profit . ref It manufactures Voltage regulator voltage stabilizer s, wiring cables , electric pump s, electric motors , Water heating geysers , solar water heaters, electric fans and Uninterruptible power supply UPS s. It was founded in 1977 by Kochouseph Chittilappilly as a small voltage stabilizer manufacturing unit. V Guard Industries is also a holding company for other establishments such as Wonderla and Veegaland , amusement parks. ref http www.vguard.in about voltage stabilizers water pumps V Guard Industries Official Website. ref ref http www.thehindubusinessline.com features investment world stock insight article2580221.ece The Hindu BusinessLine. Stock Insight V Guard Industries. ref References Reflist india company stub Category Economy of Kerala Category Companies based in Kerala ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Hogg v Cramphorn Ltd court High Court image caption date decided full name citations 1967 Ch 254 judges prior actions subsequent actions opinions Buckley J transcripts keywords Takeover, proper purpose Hogg v Cramphorn Ltd 1967 Ch 254 is a famous UK company law case on the director liability. The Court held that Board of directors corporate directors who dilute the value of the stock in order to prevent a hostile takeover the poison pill are breaching their fiduciary duty to the company . Facts Mr Baxter approached the board of directors of Cramphorn Ltd. to make a takeover offer for the company. The directors including Colonel Cramphorn who was managing director and chairman believed that the takeover would be bad for the company. So they issued 5707 shares with ten votes each to the trustees of the employee s welfare scheme Cramphorn, an employee and the auditor . This meant they could outvote Hogg s bid for majority control. A shareholder, Mr Hogg, sued, alleging the issue of the shares was ultra vires . Cramphorn argued that the directors actions were all in good faith. It was feared that Mr Baxter would sack many of the workers. Judgment Buckley J, writing for the Court, held that the new shares issued by the directors are invalid. The directors violated their duties as directors by issuing shares for the purpose of preventing the takeover. The power to issue shares creates a fiduciary duty and must only be exercised in order to raise capital and not for any other purposes such as to prevent a takeover. The act could not be justified on the basis that the directors honestly believed that it would be in the best interest of the company. The improper ... meeting , with no votes allowed to the newly issued shares. See also Clist takeovers Cheff v. Mathes , 199 A.2d 548 Del. 1964 Howard Smith Ltdv Ampol Ltd 1974 AC 832. Criterion Properties plc v Stratford UK Properties LLC 2004 UKHL 28 Notes refs 2 References Brudney, Fiduciary Ideology in Transactions ... more details
Clark v TDG Ltd t a Novacold Ltd 1999 IRLR 318 is a UK labour law case concerning the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 . Facts Mr Clark was injured at work a frozen food warehouse in Hull . He was then dismissed when an orthopaedic doctor said he did not know when he would be able to start again. Judgment Mummery LJ said the DDA drew no direct indirect discrimination distinction, and a justification defence is always available. The comparator was someone who was not disabled, and could do the work. It certainly was discrimination, but on the question of justification, no attention had been paid to the Code of Practice. Significance Some of the comments in this case are no longer good law. Since Directive 2000 78 EC, there has been an amendment to the Disability Discrimination Act so that a direct indirect distinction is introduced, and the language of the Act clarified. Lewisham LBC v Malcolm and EHRC 2008 UKHL 43, 2008 IRLR 700 expressly disapproved the decision, though Baroness Hale dissented. See also UK employment discrimination law UK labour law Human Rights Act 1998 Notes reflist 2 External links http www.hotfroguk.co.uk Companies T D G Novacold TDG Novacold s address Category United Kingdom labour case law Category United Kingdom equality case law Category Court of Appeal of England and Wales cases Category 1999 in case law Category 1999 in the United Kingdom ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Weathersfield Ltdv Sargeant court Court of Appeal of England and Wales image caption date decided 10 December 1998 full name citations 1998 http www.bailii.org ew cases EWCA Civ 1998 1938.html EWCA Civ 1938 , 1999 ICR 425, 1999 Disc LR 290, 1999 IRLR 94 judges Beldam LJ, Swinton Thomas LJ and Pill LJ prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts keywords Weathersfield Ltdv Sargeant 1999 IRLR 94 is a UK labour law concerning the scope of race discrimination. Facts Mrs Sargeant got a job at Weathersfield, a car hire company. She was told, we do have a special policy regarding coloured and Asians. We have got to be careful who we hire the vehicles to. If you get a telephone call from any coloured or Asians you can usually tell them by the sound of their voice. You have to tell them that there are no vehicles available. She was appalled, and she resigned. She claimed constructive unfair dismissal for race discrimination. The question was, although she was not herself black, was the treatment she has on grounds of race? Judgment It was held that she could claim. In the Race Relations Act 1976 it says, A person discriminates against another in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of this Act if a on racial grounds he treats that other less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons . Although Mrs Sargeant was not herself coloured or Asian, the foul conduct of the employer was still on racial grounds . See also Wilson v TB Steelwork Co Ltd ET Case no. 23662 77 A white woman won a race discrimination claim after being refused a job because her husband was black. UK employment discrimination law UK labour law Notes reflist 2 External links Category United Kingdom labour case law Category Discrimination law in the United Kingdom Category Court of Appeal of England and Wales cases Category 1998 in case law Category 1998 in the United Kingdom ... more details
Scruttons Ltdv Midland Silicones Ltd 1961 http www.bailii.org uk cases UKHL 1961 4.html UKHL 4 , 1962 AC 446, is a leading House of Lords case on Privity in English law privity of contract law contract . The Court outlined an exception to the privity rule, known as the Lord Reid test , through agency law agency as it applies to sub contractors and employees seeking protection in their employers contract. Facts Scruttons Ltd was shipping a load of crates through a carrier. In the contract between the two parties there was a limitation of liability clause for 500 per box. The goods were damaged in transit due to the negligence of the stevedores. The stevedores were under contract with the shipping company which contained an exclusion clause. Midland were unaware of the relationship between the carriers and the stevedores. Judgment At first blush, it was clear to the Court that the stevedores could not be exempted by the exemption clause as there was no privity of contract . The Court looked at whether there was a bailment relationship but found none. The case turned on the application of the Elder, Dempster case which suggested that privity could be circumvented. Lord Reid proposed that the stevedores could be covered under the contractual clause through agency if certain pre conditions were satisfied. Cquote I can see a possibility of success of the agency argument if first the bill of lading makes it clear that the stevedore is intended to be protected by the provisions in it which limit liability, secondly the bill of lading makes it clear that the carrier, in addition to contracting for these provisions on his own behalf, is also contracting as agent for the stevedore that these provisions should apply to the stevedore, thirdly the carrier has authority from the stevedore ... these conditions were satisfied in the subsequent case of New Zealand Shipping Co Ltdv A M Satterthwaite & Co Ltd New Zealand Shipping v Satterthwaite The Eurymedon 1975 AC 154. Significance With the Scruttons ... more details
Encyclopedia
top
