header-logo header-logo

15 March 2012
Issue: 7505 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Consent orders

Adobe Systems Incorporated v Netcom Online.co.uk Ltd and another [2012] EWHC 446 (Ch), [2012] All ER (D) 42 (Mar)

It was settled law that, although a consent order reflected an agreement, it was not, of itself, a contract. It was like any other order, an order which had to be obeyed unless and until set aside. The court had jurisdiction to vary (or, it appeared, to set aside) an order, or part of it, which was void under the general law, including EU law, which was binding on the court. There was nothing in the EU cases which required the domestic court to entertain new arguments or to receive new evidence in order to attack the resolution of issues which had been settled.
 

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

Orwins—Maryam Abbasi

Orwins—Maryam Abbasi

Senior associate joins family law team in London

Tees Law—Stephen Williams

Tees Law—Stephen Williams

Firm appoints chief financial officer as it expands Essex office footprint

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Restructuring and insolvency practice strengthened by partner hire

NEWS
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
A landmark ruling has delivered the first judicial application of the UK’s anti-SLAPP regime and provided fresh guidance on abusive litigation
Non-court dispute resolution is no longer an alternative in family law—it is rapidly becoming the norm
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
back-to-top-scroll