All posts with the tag: Damages

In Peak Hotels and Resorts Ltd v Tarek Investments Ltd and others, the High Court considered whether a change of circumstances had occurred to justify the reduction of a sum paid into court in fortification of a cross-undertaking in damages.  The court also considered the circumstances in which it had jurisdiction to order an interim … Continue reading Fortification of cross-undertaking in damages

Last week, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) handed down its decision in Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v ZTE Corp., ZTE Deutschland GmbH.  The judgment concerns the availability of injunctive relief for owners of standard essential patents (in this case, telecoms patents) bringing infringement proceedings.  The decision is in line with the … Continue reading CJEU rules on the availability of injunctive relief for owners of standard essential patents

In Raymond and another v Young and another, the Court of Appeal clarified that it could be appropriate to award damages for the loss of capital value to a property, even where a permanent injunction had been granted restraining further acts of nuisance.  It would not, however, be appropriate to make an award of damages … Continue reading Whether damages can be awarded in addition to permanent injunction in nuisance case

In Allfiled UK Ltd v Eltis and others, the High Court granted a bespoke interim injunction to protect confidential information and intellectual property.  In doing so, it considered the application of the American Cyanamid test where it was argued that the grant of an interim injunction would effectively dispose of the action. Facts The applicant … Continue reading Bespoke interim injunction to protect confidential information and IP

In Alfa Finance Holding AD v Quarzwerke GmbH, the High Court considered whether to grant specific performance (a type of mandatory injunction) of a clause in an agreement between the parties which gave the claimant a right of access to various documentation. On 31 December 2012, the parties entered into an agreement whereby the defendant … Continue reading Court grants order for specific performance and confirms some general principles in relation to injunctions

We have reported in previous blog posts (here, here, here and here) on cases involving the automatic suspension provisions introduced by the Public Contracts (Amendment) Regulations 2009, which implemented the new public procurement Remedies Directive. By way of reminder, under the new rules, a standstill period of at least 10 to 15 calendar days must … Continue reading Pirbright Institute successful in lifting automatic suspension on award of IT contract

The UK Government’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (“BIS”) has published a consultation on proposed revisions to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”) rules of procedure (the “CAT Rules”). The amendments to CAT Rules have been made in the context of wider competition reforms in the UK and in particular in light of the Consumer … Continue reading The Competition Appeal Tribunal’s power to grant injunctions

In Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex, the Supreme Court has ruled on the availability of the defence of illegality (“ex turpi causa non oritur actio”; from a dishonourable cause an action does not arise) in the context of a patent dispute, and in particular whether it barred the recovery of damages under a cross-undertaking where … Continue reading Does the defence of illegality bar the recovery of damages under a cross-undertaking?

In Energy Venture Partners v Malabu Oil and Gas, the Court of Appeal considered for the first time the question of what is the appropriate test to apply when determining whether fortification of the cross-undertaking in damages should be provided. This is a case and an appeal with an odd and long procedural history, almost … Continue reading The test whether to order fortification of the cross-undertaking in damages

In a mercifully short judgment in the long running Fiona Trust  case, Andrew Smith J considered (1) what conduct is relevant in deciding whether an enquiry for damages on a cross-undertaking should be refused; and (2) whether in the circumstances of that case it would be proper to refuse an enquiry. By way of judgment … Continue reading Parties’ conduct relevant as to whether to enforce the cross-undertaking in damages