The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently released a significant decision that expands occupiers' liability for violence on their premises and affirms a new privacy tort that censures the publication of aspects of an individual's private life without their consent. The decision establishes a novel cause of action for claims arising from the distribution of an individual's private information – in this case, a sexually explicit video of the plaintiff without her knowledge or consent.
The Judicial Practice Code was recently amended to provide that no judge, whether sitting alone or as a member of a panel of judges of an adjudicating court, can hear a case in which a party is represented by a lawyer who is a family member of the judge or works in the same firm or office as a family member of the judge. The recent media focus in Cyprus on the alleged impartiality of certain judges was the impetus behind the changes.
A recent High Court case is an interesting example of the extent to which entities complicit in the breach of EU sanctions are still able to bring legal proceedings relating to matters arising out of those breaches. However, it is difficult to draw any broad principles from this case given its specific factual circumstances. Of particular interest is the judge's analysis that it was considered material that the relevant activity breaching the sanctions at the time was no longer prohibited.
In a dispute between a public limited liability company and one of its employees, the Court of Appeal issued a decision concerning the testimony of executive board members of a party to a dispute. The court's decision contradicts case law that seemed to have overcome this problem with regard to public limited liability companies. Hence, the courts remain divided as to whether the testimony of a director who individually has no power to represent their legal entity will be taken into consideration.
Designated beneficiaries of a life insurance policy have traditionally had a high degree of certainty that they would be entitled to the policy proceeds on the death of the insured. However, this certainty has been jeopardised by a recent Supreme Court of Canada case where a former wife's prior contractual claim to the proceeds of her former husband's life insurance policy precluded his common-law spouse's entitlement to the proceeds as the irrevocable beneficiary.
In a recent case before the High Court, a novel issue arose as to whether a party's deployment of privileged documents for the purposes of the trial of a preliminary issue concerning limitation would result in privilege in the documents being waived (lost) for the purposes of the main trial, in the event that the court held that the claim was not time barred. The case is a useful reminder of the potential danger of trying to deploy privileged material for the purposes of only part of court proceedings.
The Court of Appeal recently held that a seller paying a fee to an acquisition agent without the buyer's knowledge does not render the contract for sale void or voidable. This judgment sets the bar high for parties to prove that a sufficient relationship of trust and confidence exists in order to engage the law on bribery and secret commissions. Notably, an agency relationship will not necessarily be enough to evidence the requisite degree of fiduciary duty.
The Supreme Court recently showed that it is reluctant to find an agreement too vague or uncertain to be enforced where the parties intended to be contractually bound and acted on their agreement. In these proceedings, three courts came to differing conclusions, which highlights the difficulties inherent in assessing contract formation and implied terms, especially where there is no agreement in writing.
In a recent judgment of the Court of Appeal, an issue arose as to whether certain technical survey reports appended to one of the party's expert reports required the court's permission to be adduced as evidence for trial. Taken together, the decisions of the lower court and the appeal court are an interesting summary of what constitutes expert opinion. They are also a good example of the courts' increased scrutiny of the use of expert reports at trial in civil proceedings.
The Rotterdam District Court recently assumed jurisdiction over the international securities class action lawsuit against Petrobras Brasileiro SA and others in the Netherlands. The judgment offers valuable insight into how the Dutch courts assess jurisdiction in cross-border collective redress cases. It also illustrates that the Netherlands could act as a collective redress venue in matters relating to events that mainly take place in foreign jurisdictions.
The Supreme Court recently overturned a first-instance court's decision to reject a request to amend a statement of claim under Rule 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules on the grounds that the amendment amounted to a new cause of action. The Supreme Court found that the proposed amendments merely referenced actions by the defendants which supported their existing claim and did not amount to a new cause of action.
The minister of finance recently announced that the statutory rate of interest on judgments pursuant to Article 33 of the Courts of Justice Law has been reduced to 2% per annum with effect from 1 January 2019. This rate will apply for the entirety of 2019.
Under the Civil Procedure Code, the Swiss courts usually take evidence only after the parties have fully pleaded all particulars. The taking of evidence is often preceded by multiple exchanges of written submissions; however, in certain cases, it may be unreasonable to wait until the proceedings have fully developed to take certain evidence. For such cases, Swiss law allows parties to request the so-called 'precautionary taking of evidence'. The Zurich Commercial Court recently issued a decision on one such request.
A recent Court of Appeal decision has confirmed that the test for deciding whether a claimant has a good arguable case is relative. Where a court lacks the evidence to decide which party has the better argument, a more flexible approach should be adopted. In circumstances where the evidence is thin, it is not all relative and claimants are required only to demonstrate a plausible evidential basis that the gateway exists.
The Hague District Court recently issued a preliminary ruling in which it held that Lacoste could not invoke its famous crocodile trademark in order to prohibit the use of a crocodile motif on children's underwear. This preliminary judgment is one of only a few examples in which the use of a sign has been considered purely decorative (and thus could not be perceived as trademark use). Typically, the courts are restrictive in accepting such a defence.
The Milan Court of Appeals recently rejected an appeal against a Milan Court of First Instance judgment concerning an interest rate swap derivative contract. The complainant had asked the first-instance court for a statement of nullity regarding the contract, claiming that its purpose could not be determined and that no adequate risk exposure information had been provided. However, the first-instance court confirmed existing case law and excluded any reason for nullity of the contract.
A recent judgment concerning a rather bold request for judicial assistance by the Chapter 11 trustee of a company within the China Fisheries Group provides a useful reminder of the common law criteria to be applied for recognition of foreign office holders. However, a more interesting point, perhaps, is that the Hong Kong courts will not be afraid to defend the integrity of their orders if and when attempts are made to circumvent them.
In a drawn-out dispute between the Kataeb Political Party and The Modern Media Company (MMC), the Beirut Supreme Court has confirmed that ownership of a trademark or trade name is acquired through use and not through registration with the relevant authorities. However, the MMC believes that the court made a serious error in its decision and has thus appealed to the country's highest court.
Section 14A of the Limitation Act sets out the position on latent damage in negligence claims. Litigation around the application of Section 14A has predominantly centred on when the claimant has the requisite knowledge to bring a claim and if a claim could, and should, have been brought earlier. This has been brought into sharp focus in a recent case relating to a claim brought against the Bank of Scotland.
A recent Court of Appeal decision examined a dispute concerning entitlements under an earn-out provision in a share purchase agreement. The claimant argued that, under the agreement, he was entitled to provide consultancy services for a further period to be agreed by the parties. However, the court found that there is no obligation on parties to negotiate in good faith about matters which remain to be agreed and that the defendant was free to negotiate in accordance with its own commercial interests.