We use cookies to improve our site and your experience. By continuing to browse on this website you accept the use of cookies. Read more...

July 2015

Welcome to the July 2015  edition of The Round-Up!

This month Rahul Varma looks at the guidance given by the Supreme Court on how to interpret written contracts in the case of Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36.

In the field of employment, law the Court of Appeal has given important guidance for anyone considering indirect discrimination claims in the case of Home Office (UK Border Agency) v Essop and others [2015] EWCA Civ 609.

Vaughan Jacob analyses the recent Court of Appeal case of Stobart Group Limited v Elliott [2015] EWCA Civ 449, which looks at what leeway (if any) be should granted to a litigant in person seeking relief from sanction.

Finally, Philippa Seal discusses use of injunctions under the Anti-Social, Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 in the case of Chief Constable of The Bedfordshire Police v (1) Golding; (2) Fransen [2015] EWHC 1875 (QB)


IPR Updates – July 2015: HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES Co. Ltd. v ZTE Corp. (Case C-170-13) CJEU 16 July 2015The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down an important decision on the 16 July 2015 dealing with the thorny issue of the balance to be struck between the rights of patent proprietors of patents that have become part of a European standard and the rights of third-parties who have not concluded an agreement with that patent holder for the use the protected technology – but have used it in any event to comply with the requirements of the EU standard.

Back to The Round-up

The Round-up 2015