Coventry v Lawrence: Nuisance and planning permission in the UK Supreme Court: from the Court of Appeal

There are recognised causes of action beyond the contractual, (or asserting rights in property) which in the University sector it is easy to become preoccupied with. This week in the UK Supreme Court, on appeal from the Court of Appeal, is a case involving the tort of nuisance, tied up in a planning permission. Coventry v Lawrence involves nuisance created from motor sports, and the issue whether the grant of planning permission sanctions any nuisances flowing from the permitted activity.

As every student of the law knows, In Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966 (nuisance created by the sport of Cricket) Lord Denning MR began his judgment in classic style: ‘In Summertime, village Cricket is the delight of everyone.’ Doubtless Miller v Jackson is a case of its time, but Lord Denning’s judgment is a good frame of mind to begin any query into the law of ‘nuisance’.

The Court of Appeal decision in Coventry v Lawrence is attached. The Supreme Court appeal hearings run today and tomorrow.

Miller v Jackson, and the Court of Appeal decision in Coventry v Lawrence are available from the links below:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1977/6.html

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/26.html&query=coventry+and+v+and+lawrence&method=boolean

Volkswagen v Garcia: Academic publication and interaction with commercial interest

Please find attached a link to an interesting short discussion of the Injunction case of Volkswagen v Garcia, heard in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court before Justice Birss (formerly the Patents County Court) in June 2013, from the Lexology legal feed; illustrating that there are limits to freedom of academic publication when balanced against legitimate commercial interests. Further discussion of the Volkswagen injunction, involving UK academics will follow in a later blog.

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=2d920b6d-6e18-42bd-b6db-6829e58fb71a&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2013-11-06&utm_term=

Liability of Educational authorities (Essex County Council) to pupils in their (educational) care

Please find attached a Note and link to the case of Woodland v Essex County Council [2013] UKSC 66 recently decided in the Supreme Court; extending the ambit of the educational authority’s liability (via the educational function of the schools) to school pupils for personal injury (in this tragic case, catastrophic hypoxic brain injury) on the basis of the educational authority’s ‘non-delegable’ duty of care.

The extension (or if preferred, redefinition) of the educational authority’s non-delegable duty now covers the negligence of independent contractors engaged in work that the schools would ordinarily have carried out themselves (usually via their direct employees) – in this case swimming lessons to primary school pupils. Swimming lessons, were on the available evidence, part of the national curriculum. The case, replete with tragic consequences, will be remitted back to the High Court for trial, but the Supreme Court in its judgment appears to have found the Defendant with the ‘deepest pocket’ for the Claimant to bring an action against.

Click to access UKSC_2012_0093_PressSummary.pdf

Click to access UKSC_2012_0093_Judgment.pdf

Drafting and negotiating agreements: A ‘process’ driven approach

Please find attached a link to an article written on Mark Anderson’s Intellectual Property and drafting blog, which is concerned with the process of contractual drafting, and practical methods that could be adopted to achieve successful results when negotiating agreements. The Anderson website also contains many useful articles on drafting skills underpinned with relevant legal sources. Enjoy.

10 tips for successful contract negotiations

Trade Mark infringement and Confusion of Brands: Universities and Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)

Please find attached a link to the case, and a Case Note in relation to the Brand confusion case (Regent University v Regent’s University London). This was an interim proceeding between a US and private UK University, heard recently in the Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court.

CK2609Regent UniversityvRegentsUniversityLonBlog

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWPCC/2013/39.html&query=regent+and+university&method=boolean

Patents County Court: a change of ‘brand name’ to ‘the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court’

Please note that the Patents County Court, (out of which the Judgments of the prolific Justice Birss emerge), is now called ‘the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court’. A significant ‘brand’change? The Court certainly addresses other infringements than just patent monopolies – including copyright, database rights infringement, trade mark and breaches of confidence to name a few. The ‘Intellectual Property Enterprise Court’ captures the wider miscellany of intellectual property rights.

The attached link takes you to the Court website and the Patents County Court Guide and the Guide to the Small Claims Track of the Patents County Court.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/rcj-rolls-building/patents-county-court

Authors, creation and ownership of copyright – the main statutory provisions

Authorship and Ownership of CopyrightIn response to a recent enquiry, as to who owns copyright in published works, including academic publications, the three main provisions of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 are attached; (sections 9 to 11) which are the best starting point. Pursuant to section 9, the ‘author’ means the person who creates it, in the case of literary works, the author is taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken – in the University setting, is likely to be the Academic.

Section 10 addresses joint authorship, which means a work ‘produced by the collaboration of two or more authors in which the contribution of each author is ‘not distinct’ from that of the other author or authors. Section 11, the final section in the triumvirate confirms that the ‘author’ is the first owner of any copyright in it, subject to the important provision in section 11(2) that literary works etc made by employees in the course of employment, the employer is the first owner. The attached three sections is a good starting point for addressing prima facie ownership in copyright.

Volkswagen v Garcia et al; does this decision have a chilling effect on UK Academic Research?

CK0207VolkswagenvGarciaBlog

The unreported case before Justice Birss, involving two Universities (one English, and one Dutch) has now been reported and is available on the www.bailii.org legal authorities website. The previous comment (when the decision was unavailable) is re-attached here. Further comment will follow upon reading Justice Birss’ judgment.

The decision of Justice Birss in Volkswagen v Garcia can be read at:

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2013/1832.html&query=volkswagen+and+v+and+garcia&method=boolean

Contract Reviews: Factsheet outlining the Contract Review Service

Flowchart – Contracting Process 020913

CK0909Contract Review Fact Sheetpdf

Please find attached a short Contract Review Fact Sheet and Flow Diagram, setting out the essential elements of the Contract Review Service provided by Enterprise and Commercial Development. Further information will be provided in future blogs about other aspects of the Contract Review Service.

Exclusive Jurisdiction clauses: what the parties agree is usually final: Euromark v Smash Pty Enterprises

Please find the attached Note on the above case of Euromark v Smash Enterprises Pty Ltd [2013] EWHC 1627 which concludes that what the parties conclude as to the jurisdiction governing the agreement is usually final; merits have little say in the matter. The case itself however explores this more fully, and is worth a read.

CK2908Exclusivejurisdictionclauses

The case of Euromark can be found at:

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/1627.html&query=smash+and+enterprises&method=boolean