Click the case name for better results:

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

Machinery Market Ltd v Sheen Publishing Limited: ChD 1983

A newspaper republished advertisements which were in fact copied from a competitor. They blamed their printers. Held: The plaintiff did own the copyright in the advertisements, and was entilted to an injunction and an account of profits. It was not a defence to blame the printers. Walton J [1983] FSR 431 Copyright Act 1956 15 … Continue reading Machinery Market Ltd v Sheen Publishing Limited: ChD 1983

C Evans and Sons Ltd v Spritebrand Ltd and another: CA 1985

The court considered when a company director might be personally liable for acts of the company: ‘in order to make a director, other officer or employee of a company personally liable for the company’s tort, it is necessary to show either that he was himself the person who committed, or participated in, the act constituting … Continue reading C Evans and Sons Ltd v Spritebrand Ltd and another: CA 1985

Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc v British Phonographic Industry Limited: ChD 17 Jun 1985

BPI as representative of copyright holders sought damages from the applicant saying that their two-deck cassette tape recording machines were tools for copyright infringement by deing designed to allow copying. The defendants now sought a declaration that the machines were lawful. Held: The declaration was refused. Amstrad were authorising infringement, were joint tortfeasors, and might … Continue reading Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc v British Phonographic Industry Limited: ChD 17 Jun 1985

Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc v British Phonographic Industry Limited: CA 29 Oct 1985

Amstrad sought a declaration that their retailing of equipment with two cassette decks was not unlawful. A declaration was not granted because Amstrad might be guilty of a criminal offence. However in the absence of any evidence that Amstrad was acting in concert with members of the public, the Court thought that Amstrad’s conduct was … Continue reading Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc v British Phonographic Industry Limited: CA 29 Oct 1985

Johnson v Gore Wood and Co: HL 14 Dec 2000

Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter. Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder to seek damages against advisers to … Continue reading Johnson v Gore Wood and Co: HL 14 Dec 2000

Fisher v Brooker and Another: ChD 20 Dec 2006

The claimant said that he had contributed to the copyright in the song ‘A Whiter Shade of Pale’ but had been denied royalties. He had played the organ and particularly the organ solo which had contrbuted significantly to the fame of the record. Held: A fair trial remained possible despite the passage of time. There … Continue reading Fisher v Brooker and Another: ChD 20 Dec 2006

Gabrin v Universal Music Operations Ltd and Another: ChD 17 Jun 2003

Claim for infringement of copyright in a photograph. Patten J [2003] EWHC 1335 (Ch) Bailii Copyright Act 1956 England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 15 January 2022; Ref: scu.263721

CBS Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc: CA 1987

Persons other than the Attorney General do not have standing to enforce, through a civil court, the observance of the criminal law as such. However, Sir Denys Buckley considered that such a claim might be maintained as a representative action because, as in Duke of Bedford: ‘the plaintiffs, and all the persons whom they purport … Continue reading CBS Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc: CA 1987

CBS Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc: HL 12 May 1988

The plaintiffs as representatives sought to restrain Amstrad selling equipment with two cassette decks without taking precautions which would reasonably ensure that their copyrights would not be infringed by its users. Held: Amstrad could only be liable as a joint tortfeasor. If they were not a joint tortfeasor they would be under no tortious liability. … Continue reading CBS Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc: HL 12 May 1988

Unilever Plc v Gillette (UK) Limited: CA 1989

Unilever claimed infringement of its patent. The court was asked whether there was a good arguable case against the United States parent company of the existing defendant sufficient to justify the parent company to be joined as a defendant and to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction. Held: Section 60(1) of the 1977 Act, described … Continue reading Unilever Plc v Gillette (UK) Limited: CA 1989

In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof): HL 14 Dec 1995

Evidence allowed – Care Application after Abuse Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still been been found. Held: A care order could … Continue reading In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof): HL 14 Dec 1995