Welcome to the June 2015 edition of The Round-Up!
In this issue Dr Tim Sampson examines the Supreme Court's decision in Starbucks (HK) Limited v British Broadcasting Group and Other (No.2)  UKSC 31 and the effect this has on the law concerning passing off claims.
Elizabeth Dwomoh considers another Supreme Court decision in Haile v London Borough of Waltham Forest  UKSC 34 which concerns the definition of "intentional homelessness."
Adam Swirsky considers the case of Sterling v United Learning Trust (UKEAT/2015/0439) and the effect of the amended Rule 10 of the Employment Tribunal Rules, which requires that an ET1 must contain a valid ACAS certificate number.
Finally, Ross Beaton advises when a late amendment to a statement of case will be too late following the decision in CIP Properties v Galliford Try Infrastructure  EWHC 1345 (TCC).
Amendments to statements of case – late, very late, and too lateIn complex litigation, late amendments are not uncommon, and used to be allowed routinely, with any prejudice being dealt with in a costs order.Starbucks (HK) Ltd. v British Sky Broadcasting Group and Other (No.2)  UKSC 31The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Starbucks (HK) v BSB has upheld the longstanding principle that to bring an action in passing off the Claimant must have more than a reputation in the UK - it must have actual paying customers and that the application of this principle is not altered by the fact that the service in question is one that is known to individuals living in the UK.Intentionally homeless: Haile v London Borough of Waltham Forest  UKSC 34In October 2011, H, a pregnant woman, surrendered the tenancy of her bedsit in a hostel, which only accommodated single people.Early Conciliation Certificates and the need for accuracyEmployment practitioners already know that, for tribunal claims started after May 2014, claimants must embark on the ACAS early conciliation process and, before lodging their claim, they must also obtain a certificate number from ACAS.
Back to The Round-up