Featured documents
Lucasfilm did not benefit in any way at Tyburn Film Productions Ltd's expense, counsel said to the appeals court there on 3 December 2025, in part because it already possessed rights over Cushing's likeness and an agreement and consent from the Cushing estate to 'resurrect' him as Grand Moff Tarkin. Tyburn contends it earlier made an agreement with the late actor then, at the time, granting the company a veto over any use of his image prior to his 1994 death. That contract concerns a TV series titled 'Heritage of Horror', which never aired. Tyburn further asserts the deal permits it to effectively 'resurrect' Cushing using stand-ins and CGI to ultimately finish the programme then if the actor were to die whilst filming remained in progress...
Irish telecom operator Eircom’s damages lawsuit against BT Group over a public-sector contract must be carefully managed to trial to deal with confidentiality issues and other matters, a UK judge told the parties today. At the High Court in London today, a judge said Eircom’s damages action against BT over a public-sector contract needs tight case management through to trial to address confidentiality and related concerns. Eircom brought the claim after Ofcom in 2020 penalised BT for its behaviour during a tender. Speaking to both sides, Judge Adam Johnson urged them to resolve any confidentiality flashpoints themselves and signalled he had no wish to step in unless it became unavoidable. He also expressed confidence that parties would do everything possible to keep confidential designations to a minimum, noting this was necessary to maintain control over the conduct of the trial. He framed this as the
The following document is attached: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/274 dated 5 February 2026, revising Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1981, establishing a final anti-dumping levy on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware produced in...
Justice Richard Arnold granted AstraZeneca leave to appeal and permitted lorries carrying about 175,000 packs of Glenmark’s generics to move on to wholesalers, provided they did not reach pharmacy shelves while the case continued at any point during those interim proceedings. In this way, Glenmark could keep its first-to-market advantage, while causing only minimal detriment to AstraZeneca should the Court of Appeal later be persuaded to issue an injunction against supply. The judge said this approach maintained the status quo with the least possible prejudice to Glenmark’s position overall. The hearing was arranged at short notice, just days after the High Court refused AstraZeneca an injunction to block the diabetes generic from sale while the court considered whether the patents supporting the branded medicine were valid in law. Glenmark, Generics (UK) Ltd and Teva Pharmaceuticals have each begun proceedings in the UK to set...
Most recent News
Original news Civil Procedure ( Amendment No 8) Rules 2014, LNB News 18/12/2014 152 SI 2014/3299: The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, SI 1998/3132 ( CPR) are revised to reflect established case law on Part 36 with effect from 6 April 2015. What are the principal amendments to CPR, Pt 36 arising from the Civil Procedure ( Amendment No 8) Rules 2014? The measures are wide-ranging in the circumstances they touch, and in several respects they codify existing case law. The key changes are as follows. CPR 36.2(3) clarifies that Part 36 applies to additional claims and to counterclaims, so a counterclaimant who makes an offer may rely on the claimant-offer consequences, including an entitlement to costs if the offer is accepted. CPR 36.4 states that a Part 36 offer can be made in both first-instance and appeal proceedings, but it is effective only in the...
Original news Re Harvest Finance Ltd ( In Liquidation); Jackson and another v Cannons Law Practice LLP and others [2014] EWHC 4237 ( Ch); [2014] All ER ( D) 216 ( Dec) Following relief obtained by the liquidators under the IA 1986, ss 234 and 236, the Companies Court considered whether it possessed the power to require payment of the costs incurred by the respondent solicitors in complying with an order to hand over papers and electronic material. The court concluded that, in the circumstances, it should, as a matter of discretion, refuse to allow the respondents to charge for the time expended. What was the background to the application? The applicants were liquidators of a company suspected of being used as a vehicle for a large-scale international fraud, involving loans secured on securities whose values appeared to have been artificially inflated. The...
Practical implications Although the ECJ’s ruling in West Tankers sharply narrowed the scope for anti-suit injunctions, that constraint applies only within EU Member States. As a result, such injunctions remain a key device in cross-border disputes to ensure cases proceed in the English courts. This decision outlines what a claimant must establish to ground the court’s jurisdiction: Where an anti-suit injunction is sought to restrain or pre-empt proceedings in a non- EU Member State, there is no need to show that any of the CPR PD 6B service gateways apply to the injunction itself in order to found the English court’s jurisdiction. The reason is that the injunction is not a self-contained claim but is ancillary to existing proceedings; therefore, no distinct jurisdictional basis is required under either Part 6 or Brussels I. Nonetheless, the court’s jurisdiction must already have been engaged by a...
News analysis Emerald Supplies Ltd v British Airways plc [2014] EWHC 3513 ( Ch), [2014] All ER ( D) 340 ( Oct) During proceedings about the defendant airline’s alleged participation in a cartel, the European Commission adopted a decision. A dispute arose over whether a redacted version of that decision should be made available to the parties for inspection and use in the case. The Chancery Division determined that a confidentiality ring between the parties ought to be established, permitting circulation of the decision among its members, together with a safeguard preventing the claimants from using it to launch any further proceedings. What is the background to this matter and the competing interests concerning disclosure of the Commission’s decision? The claim is brought by 565 claimants, following the European Commission’s air cargo cartel decision. In a press release dated 9 November 2010, the...
Original news Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers Act 2014 ( Commencement) Order 2014 LNB News 01/08/2014 57; SI 2014/2039: With effect from 1 October 2014, a spouse or civil partner of someone who dies without leaving a valid will will take the entire intestate estate where there are no issue, and a larger allocation where issue are left. These revisions flow from the commencement of the Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers Act 2014 ( ITPA 2014). What does ITPA 2014 mean for the routine work of wills and probate practitioners? ITPA 2014 takes effect on 1 October 2014. Among the most notable shifts introduced by ITPA 2014 is the overhaul of the intestacy rules in section 46 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 ( AEA 1925). The legislation secures substantially enhanced financial provision for a surviving spouse where a person dies...
Original news Digital TV streaming service found guilty of copyright violations, LNB News 26/06/2014 New York Times, 26 June 2014: The US Supreme Court held that Aereo, a television streaming platform, breached copyright by capturing broadcast signals with miniature aerials and forwarding them to subscribers for payment. The ruling was a significant victory for US broadcast networks, which argued Aereo had used a high-tech method to pilfer their content. What is the state of unauthorised online streaming in the US? The Aereo judgment adds to a global discussion about third parties distributing broadcast programmes, stepping in between broadcasters and viewers. The case turned on whether US copyright law required permission from broadcasters when Aereo picked up their programmes off-air and sent them online to its users. As a general rule, retransmitting a broadcast to the public in a Berne Convention country will infringe the...
Original news Kohler Mira Ltd v Bristan Group Ltd [2014] EWHC 1931 ( IPEC), [2014] All ER ( D) 130 ( Jun). After the Patent County Court (as it then was) found that the defendant had infringed the claimant’s UK unregistered design rights, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court held that the claimant should receive a sum equivalent to a royalty of 6.7% of the price at which the defendant sold the infringing shower units to its customers. Moreover, exercising its discretion with reference to policy considerations, the court ruled that the defendant could not invoke the defence of innocence under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s 233(1), when it was advanced for the first time during the damages inquiry. Briefly, what was the background to this judgment? This ruling concerns a damages inquiry following last year’s liability decision— Kohler Mira Ltd v Bristan Group Ltd...
Original news Windemere Marina Village v Wild [2014] UKUT 0163 ( LC) The landlord of a marina development – a mixed scheme on the banks of Windermere – appealed an LVT determination that replaced the apportionment of service costs payable by tenants of 26 dwellings with the tribunal’s own division, displacing the split previously set by the landlord’s appointed surveyor. Permission to appeal was granted because the question raised a point of principle with potentially wide reach. Under the lease of a dwelling at the marina, the tenant is required to contribute a fair share of service expenses, that share to be fixed by the Lessor’s surveyor for the time being, whose decision is stated to be final and binding. The central issue was whether statute renders void an agreement making the landlord’s surveyor’s assessment of the service charge...
Original news Coventry and others v Lawrence and another [2014] UKSC 13, [2014] All ER ( D) 245 ( Feb) In February 1975, planning permission was issued to build a stadium in rural Suffolk. That consent authorised use for speedway racing and related facilities for a period of ten years, and in 1985 it was thereafter made permanent. Stock car and banger racing began at the stadium in 1984; after a decade of such activity, Mr Waters obtained a certificate of lawfulness of existing use or development. To the rear of the stadium lay a motocross circuit, operated under a temporary personal planning consent, which was later renewed on a permanent footing. In January 2006 the proprietors, Katherine Lawrence and Raymond Shields, took up residence at Fenland, a residential property situated close to the stadium and the track. In 2008 they commenced...
Original news Report: The Personal Insolvency Landscape— A way forward for formal debt relief The Association of Business Recovery Professionals ( R3) has published a paper seeking to restore balance and coherence to the personal insolvency framework in England and Wales. What are the current problems with the personal insolvency regime? At present, the principal shortcomings are: Limits Existing thresholds are out of date. For example, a creditor can still petition for bankruptcy where only £750 is owed. This figure has remained unchanged since 1986—something in the region of £3,000–£5,000 would be more appropriate. Bankruptcy period The default one‑year bankruptcy term is too brief—it should revert to three years, with an early discharge after a year where bankruptcy occurred without personal fault. For the most imprudent cases, there ought to be scope to lengthen the period up to 15...
Popular documents
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews mechanisms used in settling litigation. A Tomlin order consists of a consent order paired with a schedule. It operates to stay proceedings on terms that have been agreed. The provisions contained in the schedule may remain confidential. This Practice Note describes the scope of confidentiality attaching to the schedule and sets out how it differs from a standard consent order. Sample wording for a Tomlin order is included, alongside links to precedents, as well as guidance on court approval. It also addresses varying, setting aside and enforcing a Tomlin order, including the considerations the court will take into account when handling applications for each. Further guidance is provided on interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the CPR; however, some courts and divisions impose very specific requirements for both drafting and approval, and for approaching the schedule and confidentiality issues. Accordingly, you must consider the particular rules and court guide provisions in the forum where your claim is proceeding when drawing up the Tomlin order...
Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Landlord) [ name of Tenant ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Tenant) [ [ name of Guarantor ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Guarantor) ] [ [ name of Mortgagee ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Mortgagee) ] Definitions Within this Deed, the terms below shall be interpreted as follows: [ Annual Rent • the annual sum reserved under the Lease; ] [ Insurance Rent • the Tenant’s share of the Landlord’s costs of insuring the Property (as set out in the Lease); ] Lease • the lease of the Property dated [ date ], entered into between (1) [ the Landlord OR [ name ...
I, [ name ], of [ address ], solemnly and sincerely state that: [ Matters to be verified, set out in numbered paragraphs ] I make this solemn statement in good conscience, believing it to be true, and pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. DECLARED at [ details ] this [ day ] day of [ month and year ] Before me ................................................................................ [ signature of the person before whom the declaration is made ] A [ commissioner for oaths OR [ solicitor OR [ insert other qualification ] ] authorised to administer oaths ]...
Discover more from LexisNexis
