 |
|
 |
| |
Rubicon v United Paints (2000)
|
The Court of Appeal held that a contract to
supply an IT system was breached by installing a
time-lock device in that system, on the ground
of breach of the warranty to give quiet
possession. |
|
Sam Business Systems v Hedley
(2002)
|
In considering the extent of a customer’s
remedies following a difficult implementation
process the Court ruled that the Defendant's
exclusion and limitation clauses were effective,
and provided an indication of the approach of
the Technology & Construction Court to exclusion
and limitation clauses following the decision in
Watford v Sanderson. |
Totalise v Motley Fool (2001)
|
An applicant for a ‘Norwich Pharmacal’ style
order will normally be required to pay the
defendant’s legal costs, since it is for the
applicant to prove to the Court that he or she
is entitled to an Order for disclosure, rather
than the defendant to make a (potentially
erroneous) decision as to whether to provide
disclosure |
Holman v Sherwood (2001)
|
An insurance broker claimed that software
supplied to it was defective and had not
delivered the expected business benefits. The
Court considered whether the Supplier's
exclusion clauses could be challenged as unfair
contract terms and decided that they were unfair
and therefore ineffective. |
DPP v Lennon (2006)
|
The first reported criminal case in the UK
relating to a denial of service attack. The
court, on appeal, found that that a denial of
service constituted an offence of unauthorised
modification under s.3 of the Computer Misuse
Act 1990. |
Marks and Spencer v Craig
Cottrel (2001)
|
Judgment had been entered previously against the
Defendant preventing it from exploiting domain
names, and using information gathered for
fraudulent purposes. The Defendant persisted and
the Court ordered that he be arrested and
imprisoned for 12 months for contempt of Court. |
MBNA v Freeman (2001)
|
MBNA claimed that Mr Freeman was infringing its
registered trade mark by using the domain name mbna.co.uk.
The Court decided to hold a full trial to decide
the issue, and ordered that Mr Freeman must not
sell the domain in the meantime. |
Culkin
v Wirral Independent
Appeal Panel
|
school had excluded C for allegedly making
persistent false and damaging allegations
against members of the school staff following
C's purported infringement of restrictions
placed on his use of the school's network. ..more |
Psychometric Services v Merant International (2001)
|
A purchaser of IT systems sought to obtain the
source code to those systems when the
relationship with its supplier broke down.
Without the source code the claimant would have
been unable to continue with its business and
would have gone into liquidation; there were
also contractual terms supporting the assertion
that the claimant was entitled to the source
code. The source code was awarded to the
claimant, and the importance of ensuring access
to source code emphasised |
Road Tech v Mandata (1996)
|
A business used the trademarks of a competitor
in its website metadata in order to attract
search engine traffic. The Court found that the
defendant had infringed the claimant's rights
and ordered it to pay damages of £15,000. |
|
Case summary courtesy of
out-law.com
|
|
 |
|
 |
