Epsilon Data Management v EUIPO – Epsilon Technologies (Epsilon Technologies) (EU Trade Mark – Judgment): ECFI 16 Nov 2022

EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark FORO16 – Earlier EU figurative and word marks Cambio16, Energia16, Cambio16 radio – Earlier national figurative and word marks, Camb16, DEFENSA Y SEGURIDAD 16, CAMBIO16 DIGITAL, EVENTOS 16, Salon16 – Relative ground for refusal – Family of marks – Lack of evidence – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001

Citations:

T-512/21, [2022] EUECJ T-512/21, ECLI:EU:T:2022:711

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.683336

Newcastle City Council (Local Government): ICO 4 May 2020

The complainant has requested information relating to an investigation being carried out by the council into activities at a property, near to where he lives, which he considers are breaching licencing requirements. The council refused the request on the basis that section 30(1)(b) of the Act applied (Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 30(1)(b) to withhold the requested information. She has however decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of section 10(1) in that it did not respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 30: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50836251

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.653601

Arnold v Halcyon Yachts Ltd: AdCt 21 Oct 2022

This claim concerns a transatlantic yacht delivery from La Rochelle, France to Bear, Delaware, on the eastern seaboard of the USA.

Judges:

Mr Admiralty Registrar Davison

Citations:

[2022] EWHC 2858 (Admlty)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.683263

Lisa Draxlmaier Gmbh v Bos Gmbh and Co Kg: PatC 8 Nov 2022

Patent action in which the claimant seeks a declaration of non-infringement (‘DNI’) against the patentee, the defendant (BOS) under section 71 of the Patents Act 1977. The subject matter of the EU patent (EP 3266631 B1) is part of a system of blinds installed in car windows.

Judges:

Sir Anthony Mann

Citations:

[2022] EWHC 2823 (Pat)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.682770

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 26 May 2020

The complainant has requested information about false passports from the Home Office (the ‘HO’). The HO advised that to comply with the request would exceed the cost limit at section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HO was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of the FOIA. She does however find a breach of section 16(1)(advice and assistance) of the FOIA. No steps are required.
FOI 12: Complaint not upheld FOI 16: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50875533

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.653595

Department for Transport v The Information Commissioner and, Dr Minh Alexander: UTAA 10 May 2021

The appeal concerns the disclosure, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘FOIA’), of staff survey reports addressing very small units within the civil service. The requested reports relate to the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (‘AAIB’), a unit within the Department for Transport (`the Appellant’ of `DfT’) and, within the AAIB, those pertaining to the ‘Investigators’ unit and the ‘Administration’ unit. The staff surveys in question were part of the Civil Service People Survey which is described as an important tool in the management of the Civil Service. The FTT upheld the decision of the Information Commissioner (`the First Respondent’ or ‘Commissioner’) that the Appellant must disclose information requested by the Second Respondent, Dr Alexander, relating to staff surveys conducted in the AAIB between 2010 and 2018. The FTT’s decision upheld the decision of the Commissioner and agreed that no part of the requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of FOIA (personal data). This is disputed by the Appellant in Grounds 1 and 2 of its grounds of appeal. The FTT also agreed with the Commissioner that the requested information is not exempt from disclosure under section 36(2)(c) of FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). This is disputed by the Appellant in Ground 4 of its grounds of appeal. The Upper Tribunal dismissed Grounds 1 and 2 but allowed the appeal on Ground 4 as it was satisfied that the FTT failed to take account of and/or give appropriate weight to the relevant evidence on behalf of the Appellant as to the impact of disclosure of the requested reports and failed to give sufficient reasons for rejecting the evidence that there were possible chilling effects of disclosure. The case was remitted to a freshly constituted panel of the FTT to decide whether the section 36 FOIA exemption applies.

Citations:

[2021] UKUT 327 (AAC), [2022] WLR(D) 148, [2022] 1 WLR 3403

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.683393

Brighton and Hove City Council (Local Government): ICO 27 Oct 2021

The complainant requested information from Brighton and Hove City Council (‘the Council’) relating to hazardous sites. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to carry out a reconsideration (internal review) of a response it provided, under the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’), within 40 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 11 of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Reconsider how it responded to the original request and inform the complainant of the outcome of that reconsideration in accordance with Regulation 11 of the EIR. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Freedom of Information Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
EIR 11: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-127192

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.674991

Ministry of Justice (Central Government, Local Government): ICO 18 May 2020

The complainant requested from City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (the Council) information relating to Empowering Minds Consultancy Ltd. The request was in six parts. The Council complied with part 1 of the request, but cited section 14(2) (repeated requests) of the FOIA and refused the other parts of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 14(2) of the FOIA to part 5 of the request. However, with regards to parts 2, 3, 4 and 6 the Commissioner considers that section 14(2) was incorrectly applied. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. – Issue a fresh response to parts 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the
FOI 14(2): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50892242

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.653600

Sumukan Ltd v Commonwealth Secretariat: ComC 14 Feb 2007

The claimant had created a prototype online group purchasing scheme for the defendant. The claimant sought to appeal an arbitration award.

Judges:

Toulson J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 188 (Comm), [2007] ArbLR 55, [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 370

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Sumukan Ltd v Commonwealth Secretariat ComC 27-Feb-2006
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Sumukan Ltd v The Commonwealth Secretariat CA 21-Mar-2007
The appellants sought to challenge a finding that they had by their contract with the defendants excluded the right to appeal to a court on a point of law. The defendants replied that the appeal court had no jurisdiction to hear such an appeal.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Arbitration

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.248810

Croxen and Others v Gas and Electricity Markets Authority and Others: ChD 11 Nov 2022

Application for directions by the officeholders (in five cases joint administrators, and in the other five cases, joint liquidators) of companies that were formerly licensed under the Electricity Act 1989 (‘EA 1989’) and the Gas Act 1986 (‘GA 1986’) to supply electricity and gas to domestic customers in the UK.

Judges:

Mr Justice Zacaroli

Citations:

[2022] EWHC 2826 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Utilities

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.682842

Delta Stroy 2003 (Judicial Cooperation In Criminal Matters – Imposition of A Financial Penalty On A Legal Person for Non-Payment of Tax Debts – Concept of ‘Confiscation’ – Judgment): ECJ 10 Nov 2022

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA – Applicability – Imposition of a financial penalty on a legal person for non-payment of tax debts – Concept of ‘confiscation’ – Articles 48, 49 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Penalties of a criminal nature – Principles of the presumption of innocence and the legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties – Rights of the defence – Imposition of a criminal penalty on a legal person for an offence committed by the representative of that legal person – Parallel criminal proceedings against that representative that have not been concluded – Proportionality

Citations:

C-203/21, [2022] EUECJ C-203/21, ECLI:EU:C:2022:865

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Taxes Management, Human Rights

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.683334

Laboratoire Pareva v Commission and Others (Biocidal Product – Active Substance Phmb – Judgment): ECJ 10 Nov 2022

Appeal – Biocidal products – Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 – Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2014 – Active substance PHMB (1415; 4.7) – Refusal of approval as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 1, 5 and 6 – Approval as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 2 and 4 – Teratogenic effect – Human health risk assessment

Citations:

C-702/21, [2022] EUECJ C-702/21P, ECLI:EU:C:2022:870

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Administrative

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.683340

Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust (Health): ICO 10 Oct 2022

The complainant has requested information about the 2021 flu vaccination. The final position of Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) is that it has released the relevant information it holds and does not hold any further relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the Trust does not hold any further information within scope of the complainant’s requests and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any remedial steps.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO 144526

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.683125

Zim Properties Ltd v Proctor: ChD 8 Nov 1984

Capital gains tax – Sum on compromise of action for negligence – B Whether disposal of asset – Whether sum derived from claim or from land – Whether asset acquired and market value at date of acquisition deductible – Finance Act 1965, 5 22.

Citations:

[1984] EWHC TC – 58 – 371 (Ch), (1984) 58 TC 371, (1985) 58 TC 371

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.683405

BBC (Other): ICO 22 Jun 2020

In an eight part request, the complainant has requested information about the programme ‘Confronting Holocaust Denial with David Baddiel’. The BBC refused to comply with the request as it considered that all the requested information was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and was therefore outside the scope of the FOIA. The complainant disputed this. The BBC subsequently re-considered its response to part 3 of the request. It confirmed that it does not hold some of the information requested in that part and has refused to release other information under section 40(2) of the FOIA as it considers it to be the personal data of third persons. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information requested in parts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the request, and elements of part 3 of the request, is derogated and does not fall within the scope of the FOIA. The BBC does not hold some of the information covered by three parts of part 3 of the request and has now complied with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA in respect of this information. The remaining information that the complainant has requested in the above three parts is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the FOIA as it is the personal data of third persons and disclosing it would not be lawful. Regarding its response to part 3, the BBC breached section 10(1) and 17(5) of the FOIA as it did not confirm that it does not hold some of the requested information or issue an appropriate refusal notice with regard to other information, within the required timescale. The Commissioner does not require the BBC to take any remedial steps.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50918278

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.653612

VP Capital (Freedom of Establishment): ECJ 10 Nov 2022

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Freedom of establishment – Article 49 and 54 TFEU – Transfer of a company’s registered office to a Member State other than that in which it was incorporated – Recovery of write-downs recorded prior to the transfer – Exemption – Comparability of situations

Citations:

C-414/21, [2022] EUECJ C-414/21, ECLI:EU:C:2022:871

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Company

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.683349

Michael and Bridget Brown v Revenue and Customs (SDLT): UTTC 14 Nov 2022

Stamp Duty and Land Tax – Avoidance Scheme – Arrangement Under Which House Sold To Unlimited Company and Then To Shareholders On Reduction of share capital – application of s 45(3) FA 2003 to the scheme-whether determination of SDLT payable capable of imposing liability in relation to any liability arising under s 75A FA 2003

Citations:

[2022] UKUT 298 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Stamp Duty

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.683490

Department for Work and Pensions (Central Government): ICO 16 Jun 2020

The complainant has requested information about the Universal Credit programme and its information technology systems. The DWP relies on sections 22 (future publication) and 31(1) (a) (prevention of crime) to withhold requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP incorrectly relied on section 22, but correctly relied on 31(1) (a), to withhold requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with the information withheld by reference to section 22.
FOI 31: Complaint not upheld FOI 22: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50802502

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.653631

Diocese of Leicester Academies Trust (Education): ICO 2 Jun 2020

The complainant requested agendas and minutes of governors’ meetings held at Christ Church and St Peter’s Primary School, Leicester (‘the school’) during the academic year 2018 – 2019. The school is a member of a multi-academy trust, Diocese of Leicester Academies Trust (‘the Trust’) which is, therefore, the public authority with responsibility for fulfilling the request. The Trust provided the minutes, but redacted some information from them under section 40(2) of the FOIA – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust withheld some information correctly. However, the Commissioner has determined that some of the withheld information is not personal data within the definition at section 3(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018, and was therefore withheld incorrectly. She has also determined that other parts of the withheld information, while being personal data, may lawfully be disclosed, for the reasons set out in this notice. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation – disclose the information specified in paragraphs 22-25 and 60 of this notice, which has been more precisely described in a separate, confidential cover letter to the Trust.
FOI 40(2): Complaint partly upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50875128

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.653636

House of Commons (Central Government): ICO 28 Apr 2020

The complainant has requested from House of Commons (‘HOC’) information on all web sites accessed from the parliamentary network. HoC relied on Section 31 (law enforcement) and Section 24 (national security) to withhold requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that HoC correctly relied on section 31 to withhold requested information that it held or otherwise did not hold some of the requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 31: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50815649

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.653569

Information Commissioner’s Office (Other): ICO 14 Oct 2019

The complainant has requested a copy of a monetary penalty notice (MPN) issued to STS Commercial Ltd and information associated with STS Commercial’s appeal against the MPN. The ICO has withheld the relevant information it holds under section 31(1)(g) of the FOIA (law enforcement), section 32(1)(a) (court records) and section 42(1) (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The ICO is entitled to withhold the requested MPN under section 31(1)(g) of the FOIA by virtue of subsection 31(2)(c), and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Grounds of Appeal document that the ICO holds is exempt information under section 32(1)(a). The ICO is entitled to withhold the recorded discussions with its solicitors and its external counsel under section 42(1) and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any remedial steps.
FOI 31: Complaint not upheld FOI 42: Complaint not upheld FOI 32: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50836595

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.643480

Dell Emerging Markets (EMEA) Ltd and Others v Systems Equipment Telecommunications Services SAL: ComC 13 Mar 2020

Judges:

Mr Justice Henshaw

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 561 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Dell Emerging Markets (EMEA) Ltd and Others v Systems Equipment Telecommunications Services Sal and Others ComC 2-Apr-2020
Resumed hearing of the claimants’ application for an order that all the respondents are guilty of contempt of court. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.649241

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Central Government): ICO 4 Nov 2019

The complainant submitted a request to the FCO seeking information about US border controls. The FCO provided the complainant with a substantive response to that request, albeit nearly a year later, and sought to withhold the information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of a number of exemptions. During the FCO’s processing of that request, the complainant submitted a ‘meta-request’ seeking internal email correspondence regarding the processing of his original request. The FCO confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of this meta-request but explained that it considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27 (international relations) of FOIA and it needed additional time to consider the balance of the public interest test. To date, the FCO has failed to complete its public interest test deliberations in relation to the meta-request.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50885553

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.650295

Notting Hill Genesis v Ali: QBD 13 May 2020

Application for permission to make use of documents produced by the Defendant in Employment Tribunal proceedings which he brought against the present Claimant. The second application is the adjourned application by the Claimant for an interim injunction

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1194 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.650825

Northern Ireland Housing Executive (Central Government): ICO 9 Oct 2019

The complainant has requested any minutes of meetings regarding a specific cavity wall insulation study. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive disclosed some information and withheld the remainder, citing regulation 12(4)(d) (Material in the course of completion) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has applied regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR appropriately. The Commissioner does not require Northern Ireland Housing Executive to take any steps as a result of this decision.
EIR 12(4)(d): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50813210

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.643508

Northern Ireland Housing Executive (Central Government): ICO 18 Jul 2019

The complainant requested Options Appraisals relating to tower blocks and information on which Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) based decisions about its stock of tower blocks. NIHE withheld the Options Appraisals under section 36(2)(c)(prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that, at the time of the request, the Options Appraisals were exempt information under section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA and the public interest favoured maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require NIHE to take any remedial steps.
FOI 36: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50804032

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.643255

Gruber and Others v AIG Management France, Sa and Others (Leave to appeal): ComC 9 Nov 2018

Cross applications for leave to appeal

Judges:

Mr Justice Andrew Baker

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 3077 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Gruber and Others v AIG Management France, Sa and Others ComC 9-Nov-2018
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.631328

Paul v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust: QBD 4 Nov 2019

Claim for damages – witnesses to father’s death from heart attack.
Held: On the facts pleaded, Saffron’s and Mya’s claims were bound to fail.

Judges:

Master Cook

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 2893 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Paul and Another v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust QBD 4-Jun-2020
Nervous shock – liability to third parties
The claimants witnessed the death of their father from a heart attack. They said that the defendant’s negligent treatment allowed the attack to take place. Difficult point of law about the circumstances in which a defendant who owes a duty of care . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.643130

Denny and Dunipace Water: HL 4 May 1920

The Town Council of the Burgh of Denny and Dunipace (commonly described as Denny) promoted this Order, the purpose of which was to obtain a further water supply. This it was proposed to obtain by appropriating as a reservoir Loch Coulter in the Denny Hills, and leading into it the water of a new catchment area which had previously reached the outflow of the loch lower down. Loch Coulter had for long beyond the prescriptive period been used as a service reservoir by mill-owners and a valuable fish hatchery (Howieton), and it was alleged to contain water of a purity which necessitated no filtration for domestic use. The works contemplated the raising of the level of the loch with two draw-off pipes, the upper in charge of the mill-owners, and co., and the lower in charge, under conditions, of Denny. Loch Coulter was not within the catchment area of the existing water scheme of Denny, but was in close proximity (five miles) to the burgh.
The Order was opposed (1) by the Falkirk and Larbert Water Trustees, and (2) by the County Council of Stirlingshire and its Central and its Eastern District Committees, while it was watched (3) on behalf of the owners of the mills and fish hatchery. The opposition was based on the ground that the district would be, better served by a combined (amalgamated) scheme, there being at least five authorities getting water from the same district, and indirectly on the ground that Denny’s requirement was not pressing, and was more than met by the offers of a temporary supply made under conditions by the objectors and to be obtained from their existing systems.
After some days’ inquiry parties came to an agreement whereby the promoters were to obtain a supply of water on terms for some years, and subsequently on the payment of a capital sum a supply of water of a limited amount for ever; and the only question remaining was that of expenses.
That was ultimately settled on the basis that the objectors paid the expenses not only of the promotion of the Order, but of what was incidental thereto, such as the engineers’ inquiry, and co.
The promoters thereupon withdrew the Order.

Citations:

[1920] UKHL 781 – 1, 57 SLR 781 – 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Utilities

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.631525

Jacobs v James Scott and Co: HL 4 May 1899

A, a dealer in Canada, agreed by contract in writing to supply the Glasgow Tramway Company with 2100 tons of hay. The hay was described in the contract as ‘best Canadian Timothy hay,’ subject to the qualification that ‘small quantities of clover mixed in hay not to be objected to.’

To carry out part of this contract A contracted with B, also a dealer in Canada, for the supply of 900 tons of hay. In terms of this latter contract, which was in writing, the hay was to be delivered in Glasgow, and was described as ‘good sound Canadian hay,’ with the addition of this explanation, ‘good sound Canadian hay is understood to mean No. 1 export hay of fair average quality.’
In an action between A and B arising out of the rejection of part of the hay tendered as disconform to contract, it was held to be proved (1) that B knew that the hay contracted for was required by A in order to carry out his contract with the Glasgow Tramway Company, (2) that ‘No. 1 export hay’ in the Glasgow Market meant hay not in any case containing more than 20 per cent. of clover, all the rest being pure ‘Timothy’ hay (i.e., hay not containing clover or natural grasses); and (3) that the hay tendered and rejected was not of this quality.
Held (reversing the judgment of the Second Division) that it was an implied condition of the contract between A and B that the ‘No. 1 export hay’ to be supplied should be of the standard required to answer that description in the Glasgow market, and that the hay tendered not being of that standard, A was entitled to reject it as not conform to contract.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Halsbury) and Lords Watson, Shand, and Davey

Citations:

[1899] UKHL 611, 36 SLR 611

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Contract

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.631833

Gatty v Maclaine and Others: HL 30 Nov 1920

A proprietor borrowed on the security of his estates certain sums. The conditions on which the loan was made were expressed in a minute of agreement. One of the conditions was, that provided the interest on the loan ‘be punctually paid in terms of the bond,’ the lenders agreed (1) not to call in the loan for a period of fourteen years, and (2) to modify the rate of interest to 4 per cent. A quarterly payment of interest in terms of the bond became payable on 1st August 1918. It was not paid till 8th August 1918. Held ( aff. judgment of the First Division) that there had not been punctual payment in terms of the bond, and that in the circumstances the lenders had not barred themselves by their actings from insisting upon payment on the exact date.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor, Viscount Finlay, Lord Dunedin, Lord Atkinson, and Lord Shaw

Citations:

[1920] UKHL 63, 58 SLR 63

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Contract

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.631547