Search Results
Search Filters
- 5235 results found
- All (5235)
- Insights (2388)
- News (1620)
- Events (491)
- Lawyers (418)
- Services (154)
- Others (115)
- Sectors (49)
-
Ireland: Vaccination for Covid-19 – can employers require their employees to be vaccinated?
20 September 2021With approximately 90% of the adult population now fully vaccinated, many employers in Ireland will understandably be eager to know what exactly they can and cannot do in respect of employees and their vaccination status. This article explores some of the legal issues.
-
Should companies be recording their employees’ vaccination status and test results? Ben Favaro comments for People Management
17 December 2021Following a People Management Insight webinar on the topic, hosted in partnership with ELMO UK, the software provider's CEO Adam Reynolds explores the legality of collecting workers' Covid-related data.
-
Coronavirus vaccination - FAQs for employers
06 April 2022On 21 February the government launched its “Living with Covid” strategy”. As a result of this, many of the Covid measures in England have changed significantly with implications for employers wishing to adopt a particular stance on vaccination.
-
Covid-19 – can employers in Hong Kong require their employees to be tested and vaccinated?
21 January 2021With a vaccination against coronavirus being rolled out in Hong Kong shortly, many employers in will understandably be eager to have their employees vaccinated in the hope of their workplace returning to some form of normality. This article explores some of the legal issues.
-
KitKat trademark battle: Nestlé v Cadbury
29 January 2016James Sweeting has authored an article for The Times which discusses the High Court’s recent decision in Nestlé’s ongoing attempt to register the four-fingered KitKat bar as a UK trade mark. In the article, James explores the balance between allowing businesses to monopolise well-known aspects of their brand and the extent to which this could stifle fair competition.
-
Kylie v Kylie (Brands & IP Newsnotes - Issue 2)
28 March 2016It isn’t often that trade mark oppositions receive mainstream media attention. Kylie Minogue has bucked that trend by filing an opposition to reality TV star Kylie Jenner’s trade mark application for ‘Kylie’ in the US.
-
Shiny talent, shady dealing: the case of Mauro Milanese v Leyton Orient Football Club
24 August 2016The fallout from senior level football terminations rarely extends to a trial in the High Court. Most disputes are settled or go to arbitration, which is a private process. Leyton Orient’s sacking of its Director of Football Mauro Milanese, however, prompted Milanese to sue the club for wrongful dismissal, and the case went to trial in March 2016. Judgment was given in May 2016.
-
Clash of the Titans: Google v Uber (Brands & IP Newsnotes - issue 5)
23 June 2017In February, Waymo, part of Google’s parent company, sued Uber for theft of confidential information. Allegedly, a former employee of Waymo, who had been a key part of Google’s driverless car initiative, took 14,000 files and then shortly jumped ship to start up his own autonomous vehicle company. A short time later, Uber acquired the start-up for $680 million.
-
Alex Kelham comments for Sports Market Intelligence: The lion's share: Premier League v UKIP
13 October 2017Alex Kelham’s article has been published in SportCal which discusses the new UKIP lion (logo) and its possible trade mark infringement on The Premier League.
-
The Sky’s the limit? Sky v SkyKick referred to CJEU (Brands & IP Newsnotes - issue 7)
23 April 2018In the latest instalment of Sky v SkyKick, the UK High Court has referred several questions to the CJEU relating to trade mark validity, requesting guidance on the limits of bad faith when a mark lacks clarity and precision.
-
Nando’s v Fernando’s – a peri peri good idea? (Brands & IP Newsnotes - issue 7)
23 April 2018The well-known high street chicken restaurant, Nando’s, has attracted legal and national headlines in its pursuit of ‘copycat’ restaurant, Fernando’s, based in Reading.
-
Tom Merrick comments for LexisNexis: Requirement for non-reliance clause to be reasonable upheld (First Tower Trustees Ltd and anor v CDS (Superstores International) Ltd)
26 July 2018Discussing the Court of Appeal decision in First Tower Trustees, Tom Merrick advises that sellers and landlords need to take extreme care in ensuring that replies to pre-contract enquiries are accurate and up to date and be alive to the potential risks in enforcing non-reliance clauses.
-
SFO V ENRC: Landmark privilege decision by Court of Appeal
10 September 2018The Court of Appeal has handed down its much anticipated decision in the Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Limited (“ENRC”) appeal. In a judgment that will leave many lawyers breathing a heavy sigh of relief, the Court of Appeal overturned large parts of Mrs Justice Andrews’ first instance decision.
-
SFO v ENRC landmark privilege case: no appeal but the story continues…
10 October 2018The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has confirmed that it will not appeal the Court of Appeal’s landmark ruling that documents created during an internal investigation by Eurasion Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC) were protected by litigation privilege and do not have to be disclosed to the SFO. However, the story does not end there because in a new twist, ENRC has applied for a judicial review of the SFO’s investigation into criminal allegations of corruption and financial wrongdoing by ENRC.
-
Economou v de Freitas defamation case: appeal dismissed
28 November 2018In what the leading judge called a case with “unusual and tragic facts”, the Court of Appeal has dismissed Alexander Economou’s appeal against the first instance decision that his defamation claims should fail.
-
Supreme Court decision on professional negligence and loss of chance: Perry v Raleys Solicitors
21 February 2019The Supreme Court has upheld the appeal of a firm of solicitors defending a professional negligence claim and helpfully reiterated well-established principles about the approach the court must take when considering the issue of causation in loss of chance cases. The decision clarifies what has to be proved in cases where the question for the court depends on what: (a) the claimant would have done (which the claimant must prove to the usual standard ‘on the balance of probabilities’); compared with (b) what others would have done (which are better assessed on a loss of chance basis).
-
Penalty appeal kicked into touch - Nosworthy v Instinctif Partners Ltd
24 April 2019A court has recently upheld the actions of an employer (IP) which enforced bad leaver provisions contained in its articles of association (Articles). Those provisions required a resigning employee (N) to transfer her shares for minimal consideration and forfeit her loan notes.
-
Lloyd v Google: data breach class actions, have the floodgates opened?
16 October 2019The Court of Appeal has granted permission for a US-style (opt-out) “class action” to be brought on behalf of 4.4 million unidentified iPhone users against Google, to be served out of the jurisdiction. Mr Lloyd’s claim seeks uniform damages for unlawful use of browsing data without proof of damage for each individual. This ground-breaking decision overturns the High Court decision and sets the scene for the first UK class action for misuse of data.
-
Clarifying the boundary of regulated activities: Financial Conduct Authority v 24Hr Trading Academy Ltd
29 March 2021On 25 March 2021, the High Court delivered summary judgment in FCA v 24Hr Trading Academy Ltd regarding breaches of the general prohibition and restriction on financial promotion by a financial education firm. The FCA sought injunctive relief and restitution.
-
Supreme Court dismisses Times Travel (UK) Ltd’s lawful act economic duress appeal (Pakistan International Airline Corporation v Times Travel (UK) Ltd): Tom Beard comments for Lexis Nexis
20 August 2021The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled in favour of dismissing the appeal by Times Travel (UK) Ltd. The judgment sets out the essential elements on the doctrine of lawful act economic duress and what constitutes an illegitimate threat or pressure.