Employment Contract of employment. The clause relied on by the employee in her contract did prohibit shareholdings in any business carried on in competition with the former employer and was impermissibly wide and in restraint of trade unless it could be severed in some way. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the clause was however, a single covenant which had to read as a whole and could not be severed.
European Union Trade marks. The European Union Intellectual Property Office's Second Board of Appeal had correctly concluded, in a contested decision relating to of Council Regulation (EC) No 207-2009, that the law of the United Kingdom would allow, hypothetically, the opponent of an EU trade mark application to prohibit the use of the subsequent mark before the UK courts in an action for passing-off.The General Court of the European Union so held in dismissing the applicant's appeal against the Board's decision.
Contract Repudiation. The third termination notice served on the petitioner was valid and effective to remove him by compulsory retirement and, therefore, the respondent companies had to pay the petitioner the amounts of the fixed and variable allocations due to him under cl 6 of the LLP Agreement as was required when an individual member was compulsorily retired under cl 18. In so deciding the Court of Appeal, Civil Division upheld a decision of the Companies Court.
Practice Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The injunction restraining the appellant from publishing or disclosing the contents of 11-plus tests set by a university but commissioned and used by the local authority and taken by candidates in the years 2013 to 2015, would remain in place. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division in dismissing the appellants appeal found that the elements of breach of confidence had been made out and there were no ground for interfering with the judge's findings.
Contract Repudiation. The Technology and Construction Court held that, among other things, the claimant company had been in repudiatory breach of contract by instructing the defendant to leave the site of works it had been carrying out, during the construction of a facility for the claimant. The claimant was entitled to recover any over-payment made to the defendant in restitution.
Human rights Freedom of expression. The judge had been entitled to conclude that the balance had come down in favour of the preservation of the confidentiality of the claimant hedge fund manager's information sent to 36 potential investors, and that the grant of an injunction against the defendant global media news agency and financial journalist was a proportionate exception to their right to freedom of expression. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendants' appeals against the injunction.
Contempt of court Breach of court order. The defendant was sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment for contempt of court, following his commission of four breaches of an order prohibiting him from disclosing confidential information.
Damages Breach of contract. The parties had been concerned in a joint venture to explore development opportunities in the United Kingdom and Europe. The Chancery Division held, among other things, that the defendant directors were liable to the claimants for breach of directors' duties, by reason of their conflict of interest, arising from their involvement in another joint venture in Germany. The first defendant was also liable for breach of contract.
Contract Repudiation. The Supreme Court, in allowing the owners' appeal, ruled on the assessment of damages arising out of the repudiation of a charterparty by charterers of a cruise ship (the vessel). Concerning the quantum of damages to be paid to the owners, the court held that the charterers were not entitled to a credit of 11,251,677 to reflect the difference in the value of the vessel in 2007, when the owners had sold it shortly after the charterers had redelivered it, and its diminished value in 2009, when it would have been redelivered if the contract had not been repudiated. The court held that the benefit to be brought into account had to have been caused either by the breach of the charterparty or by a successful act of mitigation, and that, in the present case, the difference or loss had not, on the face of it, been caused by the repudiation of the charterparty.
Costs Taxation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that a limited liability partnership of solicitors, which acted as its own legal representative in litigation, was not a litigant in person and was not confined to the level of costs allowed to litigants in person. The claimant limited liability partnership of solicitors fell outside CPR 46.5(6)(a) because it was a corporation which was to be treated as having acted with a legal representative and it fell outside CPR 46.5(6)(b), which applied only to individuals.