header-logo header-logo

28 May 2010
Issue: 7419 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Civil procedure

Re Bloomsbury Int Ltd and others v Holyoake and others [2010] EWHC 1150 (Ch), [2010] All ER (D) 207 (May)

While a cross-undertaking would always be included in a coercive or restraining order (other than in cases brought by the Crown to enforce the law or to perform a public duty) there was no rule that an injunction would never be granted or continued if the cross-undertaking was of no real value.

The course to be taken was the course which would involve the least risk of ultimate injustice. In cases where the company had brought the claim, it might and often would be right to require the undertaking to be fortified by some amount, either by a personal undertaking from administrators or from elsewhere. It might be right that the administrators should give some undertaking albeit limited in amount. It was material to make a realistic, intelligent, estimate of the harm which the defendant might suffer; such an assessment should be limited to an enquiry as to whether there was a risk of loss. In the case

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll