Archive for the 'assignment' Category

Crosstown Music Co 1, LLC v Rive Droite Music Ltd and others – WLR Daily

Crosstown Music Co 1, LLC v Rive Droite Music Ltd and others [2010] EWCA Civ 1222 ; [2010] WLR (D) 277

“An assignment of copyright which was subject to automatic reverter in the event of an unremedied notified material breach of contract prior to the expiration of the period of copyright was permitted by s 90 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.”

WLR Daily, 3rd November 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Shanks v Unilever plc and others – WLR Daily

Shanks v Unilever plc and others [2009] EWHC 3164 (Ch); [2009] WLR (D) 354

“The words ‘that person’ in s 41(2) of the Patents Act 1977 referred to a notional non-connected counterparty operating in the appropriate market at the appropriate time.”

WLR Daily, 4th December 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Lewis and another v Metropolitan Property Realisations Ltd – WLR Daily

Lewis and another v Metropolitan Property Realisations Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 448; [2009] WLR (D) 189

“The word ‘realise’ in the context of s 283A(3)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986 was not, in its context, capable of covering a transaction where there was deferred monetary consideration during the period before that consideration came in, so that a bankrupt’s interest in property that had formerly vested jointly in him and his wife revested in him on the third anniversary of his bankruptcy despite his trustee in bankruptcy having assigned that interest to a creditor by way of an agreement for consideration of £1 and 25% of any eventual sale of the interest.”

WLR Daily, 17th June 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Pickthall Ltd v Hill Dickinson LLP and another – WLR Daily

Pickthall Ltd v Hill Dickinson LLP and another [2009] EWCA Civ 543; [2009] WLR (D) 183

“It was an abuse of process for a party to issue proceedings on the day before the limitation period expired in the knowledge that the cause of action was vested not in him but in his trustee in bankruptcy, despite the party’s intention of later seeking an assignment of the cause of action and amending the claim form so that the assignment (which had been obtained after the expiration of the limitation period) could be pleaded.”

WLR Daily, 12th June 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Doleman v Shaw – Times Law Reports

Doleman v Shaw

Court of Appeal

“When a liquidator disclaimed a lease, that did not determine any liability under the lease of the original lessee or of the guarantor in relation to leases or assignments of the leases executed after the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 had come into force on January 1, 1996, although the liability of the insolvent assignee company had ceased after the disclaimer.”

The Times, 22nd April 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Hatzl and Another v XL Insurance Co Ltd – Times Law Reports

Hatzl and Another v XL Insurance Co Ltd

Court of Appeal

“On a proper construction of article 31(1)(a) of the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, scheduled to the Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965, a dispute did not become justiciable in England merely by the fact that an assignor of one of the contracting parties happened to be domiciled in England if that was the only connection with the jurisdiction.”

The Times, 16th April 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Doleman v Shaw – WLR Daily

Doleman v Shaw [2009] EWCA Civ 283; [2009] WLR (D) 115

On a true construction of s 178(4) of the Insolvency Act 1986, on the disclaimer of a lease by a liquidator, although the company ceased to be bound by the tenant covenants so far as its own obligations were concerned, it was treated as still bound so far as third party obligations were concerned.”

WLR Daily, 1st April 2009

source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

 


June 2017
M T W T F S S
« May    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Categories