Source: http://www.swarb.co.uk/lisc/Comml19981998.php
Timestamp: 2013-05-24 09:53:22
Document Index: 452871470

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'Art 36', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'Art. 81', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'Art 85']

Commercial - 1998 Law relating to commerce in general. Including competition law, fair trading, anti-dumping. See also Company Law, Contract, Banking, and Financial Services.
This page lists 22 cases, and was prepared on 28 October 2012.
Volvox Hollandia [1998] 2 LLR 361
Nicholas Robinson -v- Messrs H C Somerville & Russell And Others 9 Jan 1998SCSLord MacFadyen
Scotland, Commercial
Link[s] omitted MTV Europe (a Firm) -v- BMG Records (Uk) Ltd and others [1998] EWCA Civ 430
10 Mar 1998CA
European, Commercial
The claimants sought damages for alleged breaches of the European Treaty by the defendants in anti-competitive behaviour.
Link[s] omitted Regina -v- Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex parte Compassion In World Farming Ltd C-1/96; [1998] EUECJ C-1/96
2 Apr 1998ECJ
European, Animals, Commercial
Restrictions of export of live animals were unsupportable under the treaty. The justification for the rules which was that the action of exporting live animals was contrary to public morals, or for the protection of the animals was insufficient.
ECTreaty Art 36 Link[s] omitted Paul Jeremy Duffen -v- Fra Bo Spa [1998] EWCA Civ 749
30 Apr 1998CA
Link[s] omitted Moore -v- Piretta Pta Ltd [1999] 1 All ER 174; [1998] CLY 113
11 May 1998QBDJohn Mitting QC
Agency, European, Commercial
M had a series of agency contracts selling women's clothing. The last contract was in 1994, and on termination, M claimed an indemnity under the contract which itself applied the regulations. Reg 17(3) gave an indemnity for new customers, where the principal continued to derive benefit. Held: The agency contract was to be interpreted to include the series of contracts, including those before the regulations. The indemnity was capped at one year's average remuneration over the previous five years. A commercial agent whose contract had been terminated during term of contract was entitled nevertheless to an indemnity in accordance with the Regulations for custom introduced for entire period. In an indemnity case, equitable principles might require there to be taken into account such part of the goodwill as the agent was able to exploit for himself, or for the benefit of another principal.
John Mitting QC said: "Consistent with the purpose of achieving harmony between member states, it is in my judgment permissible to look into the law and practice of the country in which the relevant right . . originated . . ; and to do so for the purpose of construing the English (sic) Regulations and to use them as a guide to their application". and "There are three stages in assessing the amount of the indemnity. First, it has to be asked what is the value of the business to the principal of new customers brought . . by the agent and of existing customers whose business has been significantly increased. The factors to be taken into account in making that judgment include the loss of the business of such customers after the agency has been terminated, whether due to causes beyond the agent's and principal's control (for example insolvency on the part of the customer or a decision on the part of that customer to buy goods elsewhere) or to factors within the agent's control, for example the agent taking the custom of that customer with him. That is because the thing that has to be assessed is the extent to which the principal continues to derive substantial benefits from the efforts of the agent. The value of the business which remains for the benefit of the principal can, and in some cases no doubt should be, assessed by reference to periods as short as a year. But there is nothing in the regulations that requires them to be thus limited. If on the evidence the benefits of the agent's efforts are likely to endure for more than a year after the termination of the agency then that fact can be taken into account in the assessment and need not be limited to looking at the period of one year after termination only.The second factor is that the payment must be equitable having regard to all the circumstances and particularly the commission 'lost' by the agent. . Other factors which can be taken into account under this head include . . the expenses which the agent would have incurred in earning the commission which was his due. Another factor common to all cases is accelerated payment: the indemnity is accrued as at the date of termination in respect of commission which would have occurred after it. Some discount on that account must be made.The purpose of the indemnity seems to me to be to award a share of the goodwill built up by the efforts of the agent to him on the termination of the agency. Otherwise the whole benefit of that goodwill will remain with his former principal.The third step in the calculation is this. Having calculated the amount of the indemnity, a cap is applied. The cap is provided for in reg 17(4)."
Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 No 3053 - Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents 17 Regina -v- Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Anastasiou (Pissouri) Ltd and others [1998] UKHL 21
20 May 1998HLLord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Slyn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton
The plaintiff sought an injunction restraining the import of citrus fruit from Northern Cyprus.
Council Directive 77/93/EEC 12(1)(b) Link[s] omitted David John Passmore -v- Morland Plc, The Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) Ltd, The Inntrepreneur Beer Supply Company Limited [1998] EWHC Ch 312
8 Jul 1998ChD
Landlord and Tenant, Commercial
Link[s] omitted Scotch Whisky Association -v- Compagnie financi�re europ�enne de prises de participation and others C-136/96; [1998] EUECJ C-136/96
16 Jul 1998ECJ
Commercial, European, European
A drink being a blend of various whisky's and water but with minimum strength only greater than 30 per cent was not entitled to be called a whisky. Dilution destroyed the right to claim the title.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 Link[s] omitted Watson and Another -v- Dutton Forshaw Motor Group Ltd and others [1998] EWCA Civ 1270
22 Jul 1998CA
Link[s] omitted Gibbs Mew Plc -v- Graham Gemmell and Gibbs Mew Plc and Centric Pub Company Ltd -v- Graham Gemmell [1998] EWCA Civ 1262; [1998] EuLR 588; [1999] 1 EGLR 43
22 Jul 1998CAPeter Gibson LJ, Mantell LJ, Schiemann LJ
Commercial, European, Landlord and Tenant
The brewery sought possession of a public house, tied by type. The lessee claimed damages for breach of Art. 81 and a declaration that the Block Exemption was inapplicable to his lease. His appeal from the judge's order in favour of the brewery was dismissed. The Court agreed with the majority in Greenalls. "There is no express requirement in [the Block Exemption] that the specification required must be by brand or denomination. Article 7 (1) (a) refers to beers supplied under the agreement as of a type; the tenant may be precluded from selling beers of that type supplied by other undertakings. Thus, the comparison between the agreement beers and those which he may not sell is by reference to the type of beer. The same comparison is apparent in Article 7 (1) (b), and there appears to be an assumption that the agreement will identify beers by type. Article 7 (2) defining drinks of the same type by reference to "their composition appearance and taste", is consistent with the interpretation of Gibbs Mew. Article 8 (2) (b) requires the tenant to have the right to obtain from other undertakings non-beer drinks "of the same type" as those supplied under the agreement but which bear different trademarks. "Type" there cannot mean brand or denomination. The regulation, in short, does not point to the specification having to be by brand or denomination but is consistent with it having to be by type. The present case differs from Delimitis in that in the lease itself are specified the types of beer and other drinks. The landlord cannot unilaterally enlarge the scope of the tie beyond those types. The landlord can change the brands or denominations on the price list, but unless it has freedom to do that, no brand or denomination could be added to or removed from the price list without a variation of the lease itself, requiring the tenants consent. That consideration seems to me to add practical force to the considerations based on the language of [the Block Exemption] which persuaded the majority in the Greenalls case." Though the tenant had had the benefit of protection under the 1954 Act, by hus conduct he had surrenedered his tenancy and taken an unprotected tenancy at will.
Link[s] omitted H J Banks & Co Ltd -v- Coal Authority and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1998] EWCA Civ 1342
30 Jul 1998CA
Commercial, European
Application to amend details of reference to the European Court.
Link[s] omitted H.J. Banks & Co. Ltd -v- The Coal Authority And The Secretary of State For Trade And Industry [1998] EWCA Civ 1363
31 Jul 1998CA
The appellant resisted payment under licences under which it had operated open cast mining, on the basis that the agreements were discriminatory under the ECSC Treaty.
Link[s] omitted Ingmar GB Limited -v- Eaton Leonard Technologies Inc [1998] EWCA Civ 1366
31 Jul 1998CAPeter Gibson, Aldous, Potter LJJ
Commercial, Agency, European
Case referred to ECJ.
Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents 17 - Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 Link[s] omitted Unifrigo Gadus Srl and Cpl Imperial 2 Spa -v- Ec Commission Case T-10/97 and 11/97 Ecj/Cfi Bulletin 15/98, 26 9 Sep 1998ECJ
An importer who relied upon certificates provided and which by stating the country of origin did not need to pay customs duties. When it was discovered that the certificates were wrong, the importer was found liable for the duties even he could not have known of the fault.
EC Regulation 1697/79/EEC E A Grimstead and Son Limited -v- Francis McGarrigan [1998] EWCA Civ 1523
13 Oct 1998CAChadwick LJ
Contract, Commercial
Misrepresentation Act 1967 3 Link[s] omitted Macmillan, Inc (Incorporated Under the Laws of the State of Delaware, Usa) MCC Proceeds Inc -v- Bishopsgate Investment Trust Plc (No 4) [1998] EWCA Civ 1680; [1998] EWCA Civ 1679; [1999] CLC 417
4 Nov 1998CA
Jurisdiction, Commercial, Intellectual Property
When a court came to be obliged to decide issues of foreign law which were in substance issues of fact, and experts disagreed, it had to do so, and the Court of Appeal had to come to its own conclusions respecting the circumstances in first instance court
Link[s] omitted Courage Limited -v- Crehan [1998] EWHC Ch 281
25 Nov 1998ChD
Contract, Commercial, European
Link[s] omitted Consorzio Del Prosciutio Di Parma -v- Asda Stores Ltd and Another [1998] EWCA Civ 1878; [1998] EWCA Civ 1879
4 Dec 1998CA
Commercial, European, Intellectual Property
A rule regarding the designation of origin of goods, disallowing the use of an origin name, must be readily ascertainable in the detail of the regulation, in order to be directly applicable. Designations for Parma Ham, were not readily discoverable, and had no such direct effect.
EC Regulation 2081/92 Link[s] omitted Innterpreneur Pub Company (Cpc) Ltd -v- Price 4 Dec 1998ChD
A provision in a lease of licensed premises which provided for an increase in rent if a tie as to purchase of beer was found to be unlawful under European Law, was not itself unlawful. It was not illegal nor anti-competitive since regulations change.
ECTreaty Art 85 Regina -v- Director General of Telecommunications, Ex P Cellcom Ltd and others [1999] ECC 314
7 Dec 1998QBDLightman J
Commercial, Judicial Review, Licensing
The Director General of Telecommunications can quite properly use his powers and discretion to ensure competition in telecommunications by the granting and withholding of licences. He may take account of economic factors in making such a decision. Section 3 draws a distinction between "means" (namely how the demand is to be met) and "ends" (the satisfaction of reasonable demands) and that as a matter of language, whilst the Director is expressly made the arbiter of the means to the end, he is not so made the arbiter of the ends. Section 3 recognises that there is a public interest in reasonable demands for telecommunication services being met and the court is intended to be the guardian of that public interest. The exercise in deciding whether a demand is reasonable or not requires no sophisticated exercise necessitating the Director�s experience, expertise and fund of knowledge of this and other markets. The court is well equipped and experienced in deciding questions of reasonableness. The duty of the Director was to exercise his functions in the manner which "he considers best calculated to secure� such telecommunications services as satisfy all reasonable demands for them�" and "Where the Act has conferred the decision making and function on the Director, it is for him, and him alone, to consider the economic arguments, weigh the compelling considerations and arrive at a judgment. The . applicants have no right of appeal; in these judicial review proceedings so long as he directs himself correctly in law, his decision may only be challenged on Wedensbury grounds. The court must be astute to avoid the. danger of substituting its views for the decision maker and of contradicting (as in this case) a conscientious decision maker acting in good faith and with knowledge of all the facts. " and "If (as I have stated)the court should be very "slow to impugn decisions of fact made by an expert and experienced decision maker, it must surely be even slower to impugn his educated prophesises and predictions for the future."
Telecommunications Act 1984 3 Baustahlgewebe -v- Commission (Judgment) C-185/95; [1998] EUECJ C-185/95P
17 Dec 1998ECJAdvocate General Leger
European, Commercial, Crime
The imposition of penalties following the breach of competition law is a criminal rather than civil procedure.
Link[s] omitted All information on this site is in general and summary form only. The content of any page on this site may be out of date and or incomplete, and you should not not rely directly upon it. Take direct professional legal advice which reflects your own particular situation.