‘An English claimant injured in a crash in Germany has failed in a bid to have her compensation case heard in England and Wales.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 7th October 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Proposals by academics to allow new defences against trade mark infringement to be created in the future should be resisted, a trade mark law specialist has warned.’
OUT-LAW.com, 6th October 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
E v B (Case C-436/13) ECLI:EU:C:2014:2246; [2014] WLR (D) 405
‘Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility which had been prorogued, under article 12(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (OJ 2003 L338, p 1), in favour of a court of a member state before which proceedings had been brought by mutual agreement by the holders of parental responsibility ceased following a final judgment in those proceedings
WLR Daily, 1st October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Strack v European Commission (Case C‑127/13 P) ECLI:EU:C:2014:2250; [2014] WLR (D) 40
‘An institution of the European Union could, in exceptional circumstances, refuse access to certain documents on the ground that the workload relating to their disclosure would be disproportionate as compared to the objectives set by the application for access to those documents. However, reliance on the principle of proportionality could not allow the time-limits laid down by Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L145, p 43) to be changed without creating a situation of legal uncertainty.’
WLR Daily, 2nd October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Under a new exception to copyright law, anyone will be able to make a funny parody or mash-up from existing material. But do the courts have a sense of humour, asks Adam Rendle.’
Daily Telegraph, 4th October 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Alex Verdan QC of 4 Paper Buildings considers recent judgments in private law children cases, including the President’s judgment on legal aid funding in Q v Q.’
Family Law Week, 19th September 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Michael Jones, barrister of 15 Winckley Square, considers recent developments in respect of care proceedings involving another European state.’
Family Law Week, 16th September 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘In recent news, the government outlines proposals for increased rights for the victims of crime, as well as for the revocation and confiscation of passports for ISIS fighters returning to the UK. In other news, the legality of the EU Charter comes back to haunt Chris Grayling once again.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 15th September 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Mandip Ghai, solicitor and legal officer, with Rights of Women, updates practitioners on developments in the prevention of domestic violence.’
Family Law Week, 11th September 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Mandatory rules governing the relationship between commercial agents and their principals in respect of the agent’s UK activities cannot override a valid jurisdiction and choice of law clause, the High Court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 10th September 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
Deckmyn and another v Vandersteen and others (Case C-201/13; ECLI:EU:C:2014:2132; [2014] WLR (D) 385
‘The concept of “parody” within the meaning of article 5(3)(k) of Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29/EC was an autonomous concept of EU law and its essential characteristics were to evoke an existing work, while being noticeably different from it, and secondly, to constitute an expression of humour or mockery. The concept was not subject to the conditions that the parody should display an original character of its own, other than that of displaying noticeable differences with respect to the original parodied work; that it could reasonably be attributed to a person other than the author of the original work itself; and it should relate to the original work itself or mention the source of the parodied work. However, the application of the exception for parody, within the meaning of article 5(3)(k) of Directive had to strike a fair balance between the interests and rights of persons referred to in articles 2 and 3 of the Directive, and the freedom of expression of the user of a protected work who was relying on the exception for parody and it was for the national court to determine, in the light of all the circumstances of the case, whether the application of the exception for parody preserved a fair balance.’
WLR Daily, 3rd September 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings meant that, where winding-up proceedings were opened in respect of a company in a member state other than that in which it had its registered office, secondary insolvency proceedings could also be opened in respect of that company in the other member state in which its registered office was situated and in which it possessed legal personality. The question as to which person or authority was empowered to seek the opening of secondary proceedings had to be determined on the basis of the national law of the member state within the territory of which the opening of such proceedings was sought pursuant to article 29(b) of the Regulation. The right to seek the opening of secondary proceedings could not, however, be restricted to creditors who had their domicile or registered office within the member state in whose territory the relevant establishment was situated, or to creditors whose claims arose from the operation of that establishment. Where the main insolvency proceedings were winding-up proceedings, the decision as to whether the court before which the action seeking the opening of secondary insolvency proceedings had been brought could take account of criteria as to appropriateness was governed by the national law of the member state within the territory of which the opening of secondary proceedings was sought. However, when establishing the conditions for the opening of secondary proceedings, member states had to comply with EU law and, in particular, its general principles, as well as the provisions of the Regulation.’
WLR Daily, 4th September 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘An action for the payment of a debt based on the provision of carriage services taken by the insolvency administrator of an insolvent undertaking in the course of insolvency proceedings opened in one member state and taken against a service recipient established in another member state came under the concept of “civil and commercial matters” within the meaning of article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001. Moreover, article 71 of Regulation No 44/2001 meant that, in a situation where a dispute fell within the scope of both that regulation and the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, as amended, a member state could, in accordance with article 71(1) of that Regulation, apply the rules concerning jurisdiction laid down in article 31(1) of that Convention.’
WLR Daily, 4th September 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Ever wondered what the difference is between the human rights convention and the Human Rights Act? This may help.’
The Guardian, 1st September 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Information rights tribunals will be able to provide binding rulings on public bodies’ re-use of non-personal information under new plans unveiled by the UK government’
OUT-LAW.com, 20th August 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘This week, former leaders of the Khmer Rouge face life imprisonment for crimes against humanity committed in Cambodia. In other news, the on-going conflict in Gaza sparks controversy at home, while the Lords inquiry into social media offences reaches an unexpected conclusion.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th August 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The government faces being dragged into the high court over the sale of military hardware to Israel in an unprecedented legal move that puts the UK’s controversial export policy on a potential collision course with the EU.’
The Guardian, 16th August 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Young v Anglo American South Africa Ltd and others (No 2) [2014] EWCA Civ 1130; [2014] WLR (D) 370
‘Where a company had its statutory seat and principal place of business outside England, to determine whether a claim against it could be brought in England for the purposes of article 60(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, the claimant had to show a good arguable case that England was the jurisdiction where the company had its “central administration”, which was the place where, through its relevant organs according to its own constitutional provisions, it took the decisions essential for that its operations.’
WLR Daily, 31st July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Deirdre Fottrell, Barrister of One Garden Court, considers the parameters of habitual residence and jurisdiction in the light of Re H (Jurisdiction) [2014] EWCA Civ 1101.’
Family Law Week, 6th August 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025