Search Results for: Control of Misleading Advertisement Regulations 1988

Click the case name for better results:

Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd and others v Vetplus Ltd: CA 20 Jun 2007

The claimants appealed refusal of an order restricting comparative advertising materials for the defendant’s competing veterinary medicine. The claimant said that the rule against prior restraint applicable to defamation and other tort proceedings did not apply to trade mark infringement. Held: The rule against prior restraint applied to actions involving reputation, but did not apply … Continue reading Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd and others v Vetplus Ltd: CA 20 Jun 2007

Tiscali UK Ltd v British Telecommunications Plc: QBD 16 Dec 2008

The claimant internet provider claimed damages against the defendant who it said had written to its clients making false assertions about the claimant. An earlier defamation claim had been struck out, but the claimant now alleged interference with its business by unlawful means. Held: While the allegations were novel the amendments were allowed. Eady J … Continue reading Tiscali UK Ltd v British Telecommunications Plc: QBD 16 Dec 2008

Regina ex parte Matthias Rath B v Matthias Rath Ltd the Advertising Standards Authority Ltd and its Reviewer: Admn 6 Dec 2000

Adjudications of the Advertising Standards Authority are prescribed by law, and the codes of practice are issued by virtue of statutory authority. The codes described a clear system for adjudicating complaints, and therefore anyone publishing advertising material could know in advance what rules applied, and what penalties he might incur. The need to ensure accuracy … Continue reading Regina ex parte Matthias Rath B v Matthias Rath Ltd the Advertising Standards Authority Ltd and its Reviewer: Admn 6 Dec 2000

Director General of Fair Trading v Tobyward: ChD 1989

The company advertised a product as assisting in permanent weight loss. The Advertising Standards Authority had found the advertisements to be misleading, but the company persisted, and the Authority referred the case to the applicant, who sought an injunction. Held: The court had jurisdiction to grant the injunction requested. Hoffmann J required no cross-undertaking in … Continue reading Director General of Fair Trading v Tobyward: ChD 1989

Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart: HL 26 Nov 1992

Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the cost to the employer, or … Continue reading Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart: HL 26 Nov 1992