We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 14

Exclusive jurisdiction clause does not apply to non-parties to the agreement

  • Squire Patton Boggs
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • October 29 2009

In Morgan Stanley & Co International Plc v China Haisheng Juice Holdings Co Ltd, the High Court considered whether an exclusive jurisdiction clause extended to claims made against a non-party to an agreement

High Court interprets and applies the Commercial Agents Regulations

  • Squire Patton Boggs
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • December 10 2009

In the case of Accentuate Limited v Asigra Inc, Mr Justice Tugendhat in the High Court interpreted and applied Regulations 17 and 19 of the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 (the Regulations), concerning the payment of compensation to an agent on termination of the agency contract

Personal liability of directors for company acts of IP infringement

  • Squire Patton Boggs
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • January 28 2010

In Boegli Gravures SA v (1) Darsail (2) Andrei Pyzhov, the High Court summarised when a director will be personally liable for an intellectual property infringement committed by the company

'Subject to contract' waived where parties performed before agreement signed

  • Squire Patton Boggs
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • March 30 2010

In RTS Flexible Systems v Molkerei Alois Müller GmbH, the Supreme Court has held that where a clause in a draft contract provided that the contract would not become effective until signed by the parties, the parties had waived that requirement by beginning work on the project

Leave to appeal granted in Enviroco case

  • Squire Patton Boggs
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • May 27 2010

The Supreme Court has granted Enviroco leave to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision in Enviroco Ltd v Farstad Supply AS

Company not a ‘subsidiary’ where parent has charged its shares

  • Squire Patton Boggs
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • January 28 2010

In Enviroco Limited v Farstad Supply AS, the Court of Appeal held that where a parent company provided shares in its subsidiary as security for a loan and the shares were registered in the name of the lender, the subsidiary would no longer be a ‘subsidiary’ within the meaning of sections 736 and 736A of the Companies Act 1985

High Court clarification of illegality defence

  • Squire Patton Boggs
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • October 29 2009

As a matter of public policy, the courts will not allow a claimant to enforce an illegal contract or otherwise to benefit from his own wrongdoing

Court of Appeal reaffirms rule that without prejudice material may not be used as an aid to interpretation

  • Squire Patton Boggs
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • March 30 2010

In the case of Oceanbulk Shipping & Trading SA v TMT Asia Limited, the Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court's ruling and reaffirmed the rule that without prejudice material may not be put before a court to assist in the interpretation of a settlement agreement

Agency continued even where agent no longer negotiating sales

  • Squire Patton Boggs
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • December 10 2009

In Claramoda Limited v Zoomphase Limited, the High Court was asked to determine the effective date of termination of an agency contract for the purposes of assessing whether compensation was payable under the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 (the Regulations

High Court strikes out entire exclusion clause although only one sub-clause unreasonable

  • Squire Patton Boggs
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • December 10 2009

In Lobster Group Limited v Heidelberg Graphic Equipment Limited, the High Court has held that an unreasonable sub-clause in an exclusion clause rendered the entire clause unreasonable and unenforceable