Case Summaries: 22 November 1999

Article excerpt

THE FOLLOWING notes of judgments were prepared by the reporters of the All England Law Reports.

Patent

Playhut Inc v Spring Form Inc; Ch D (Laddie J) 8 Oct 1999.

AN INVENTOR was not prevented by the Patents Act 1977 from widening out the claims of his invention between the filing of his application for a patent and its grant. The prohibition on widening the scope of the claims in s 76(2) of the Act was expressly limited to widening amendments made after the grant.

Michael Silverleaf QC (Halliwell Landau) for S; Mark Platts- Mills QC, Douglas Campbell (Needham & Grant) for P.

Licensing

South Kesteven District Council v Mackie and ors; CA (Simon Brown, Waller, Tuckey LJJ) 12 Oct 1999.

THE DEFINITION of circus in s 7(4) of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 was capable of including the winter quarters of the circus and there was, therefore, no requirement for the circus owner to be licensed under the Act when keeping his dangerous animals in winter quarters.

Peter Dean (Langleys, Lincoln) for the appellants; Russell Harris (Sharpe Pritchard & Co) for the council.

Costs

Comninos v Prudential Assurance Ltd; CA (Simon Brown, Waller, Tuckey LJJ) 12 Oct 1999.

THE ENGLISH court had jurisdiction where a summons had been issued under s 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 to decide whether a party not domiciled within the jurisdiction had such a connection with proceedings pending in the English court that he should pay the costs although he was not named as a party. If the non-party was domiciled in a Brussels Convention country, the convention did not prevent the English court from exercising its jurisdiction under s 51 of the 1981 Act.

Alexander Layton QC, Lucy Wyles (Waterson Hicks) for the appellant; Robert Hildyard QC, Anna Markham (Ince & Co) for the respondent.

Negligence

Lister and ors v Hesley Hall Ltd; CA (Swinton Thomas, Waller LJJ, Jonathan Parker J) 7 Oct 1999.

THE OWNER and manager of a residential school was not vicariously liable for sexual and physical assaults on pupils carried out by a housemaster at the school, since although the housemaster was in breach of of the duties he owed to the boys in his care, his actions were outside the course of his employment. …