Arbitration analysis: État A v B & C confirms two earlier holdings of the Swiss Federal Tribunal. First, if a party considers that a Swiss arbitral award was improperly notified but nevertheless became aware of the award informally, that party must raise the issue immediately so as to allow rectification of the deficiency; failing to do so, it may not later rely on notification defects . Second, Swiss arbitral awards are null and void only in exceptional circumstances, and only where the set-aside framework does not, in general, provide adequate relief. As a rule, even where a tribunal lacks jurisdiction, its awards remain valid. Written by PD Dr Johannes Landbrecht LLB, Rechtsanwalt and barrister at Walder Wyss, Geneva.

In addition to the means of enforcement of EU law available to the EU institutions under the EU infringement procedure, including the referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union, there are some principles, developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union, to enforce EU law at national level. That is to say, there are remedies available to individuals when they face breaches of compliance with EU law. Those principles, which form part of the so-called judicial enforcement of EU law, are: • direct effect • indirect effect • state liability The development of these principles took effect in the context of the preliminary ruling, which is a process under which Member States’ national courts co-operate and collaborate (or simply talk) with the Court of Justice of the European Union in order to achieve a harmonized interpretation of EU law. For further reading, see Practice Note: References to the Court of Justice of the European Union—the system of preliminary rulings. Whenever individuals are affected by non-compliance with EU law provisions,

This Practice Note explains when damages for breach of restrictive covenants might be awarded in lieu of an injunction, how damages are assessed and what happens if the beneficiary delays in claiming for the breach. Damages or injunction—the test The primary remedy for breach of a restrictive covenant is a permanent injunction to restrain the breach. However, the courts have jurisdiction to award damages instead of an injunction. The court's jurisdiction is equitable (except in the case of a breach by an original covenantor) so the court has discretion as to the appropriate remedy. The court is entitled to consider conduct, for example, delay or inactivity by the beneficiary as evidence that an award of damages in lieu of an injunction will be appropriate. In Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting, the court confirmed the ‘working rule’ for awarding damages instead of an injunction was if: • injury to the claimant's legal rights is small • the injury is capable of being valued in money terms • it can be compensated by a small

An arbitration agreement is evidence that the parties have consented to resolve the dispute by arbitration and that consent, once given validly, cannot be unilaterally withdrawn. Further, the obligation to arbitrate is independent and separable from the main contract. Should one party breach that agreement by attempting to resolve the dispute by way of legal proceedings in a court, there are remedies available both nationally and internationally to enforce the obligation to arbitrate as evidenced by the arbitration agreement. The remedy of enforcement of an arbitration agreement by a stay of proceedings By section 9(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), a party to an arbitration agreement against whom legal proceedings are brought in respect of a matter which under that agreement is to be referred to arbitration, may apply to the court in which the proceedings have been brought to stay the proceedings, so far as they concern that matter. By AA 1996, s 9(3), such application may not be made by that party before taking the appropriate

This Practice Note lists the three situations in which an individual worker can bring a claim for breach of their working time rights under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR), SI 1998/1833, and sets out the remedies available to a tribunal where there has been a breach, where the worker has suffered a detriment in relation to these rights, or where the worker has been dismissed in relation to these rights. It also explains the factors that a tribunal will consider when it comes to making a declaration or awarding compensation in these circumstances (including, where appropriate, for personal injury and/or injury to feelings). It confirms that vested claims for breach of WTR rights may be brought by the personal representatives of a deceased worker. There are three situations where workers can bring a claim as an individual for breach of their rights under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR 1998), SI 1998/1833. They are: • where there has been a breach of a worker's WTR 1998 rights • where a worker has suffered a

This Practice Note examines a purchaser’s causes of action and remedies where the credit in a supplier-purchaser agreement is financed by a third party. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974) provides that in certain instances where there is a connection between the supplier of goods and services and the creditor, the borrower will be able to seek a remedy against the creditor under CCA 1974, s 75 where the supplier has made a misrepresentation or is in breach of contract. This Practice Note outlines the main requirements of section 75 and the circumstances in which it might be applied when purchasing goods or services with a credit card. Overview Under a contract for the sale or supply of goods or services as between a supplier and purchaser, the purchaser’s causes of action and remedies are well known. However, what is the position where the transaction is financed by a third-party creditor? In certain debtor-creditor-supplier (or DCS) relationships, a consumer who has a claim against a supplier may have a 'like

The issue of payment and cash flow is crucial in any industry, but particularly in construction. If a party is not paid it is possible that it may be unable to continue with its obligations on a project. Non-payment in construction contracts can take a number of forms: • late payment • reduced payment • no payment at all There are several remedies available to the party awaiting payment. The most suitable remedy or combination of remedies will depend on the nature and seriousness of the dispute. The options include: • a statutory right to suspend (this can also be included as a contractual right) • a statutory right to refer a dispute to adjudication (this can also be included as a contractual right) • a right to claim interest (statutory or contractual) • commencement of court or arbitration proceedings for recovery of payment or damages • termination of the contract This Practice Note provides an overview of the various options available for each of the three types of non-payment: late payment, reduced payment

This Practice Note considers the available remedies in claims for the tort of deceit, including rescission of contracts and the award of damages. It considers rescission of contracts and the approach to awarding damages with reference to the tortious measure and the peculiar features of claims in deceit. It also considers exemplary damages, interest as damages and legal costs as damages in the context of deceit claims. For guidance on pleading deceit claims, see Practice Note: Deceit claims—pleading and standard of proof. Deceit claims—damage must be suffered In order to bring a claim in tort for deceit, the claimant must have suffered damage as a result of having been deceived. See Practice Note: The tort of deceit—required elements. Damages as a remedy The usual damage suffered is financial and therefore damages, assessed on the tortious basis, are the usual remedy in a deceit claim. Rescission and personal/proprietary claims to follow However, where the defendant’s deceit induced the claimant to enter into a contract then the claim to damages may be preceded by a declaration regarding

Overview The types of remedies that can be awarded on an application for judicial review are contained in section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981). They include: • quashing orders • mandatory orders • prohibiting orders • declarations • damages (including restitution or recovery of a sum due) • injunctions/interim remedies On an application for judicial review, the claimant must specify any remedy they are claiming in the claim form (CPR 54.6). SCA 1981, s 31(1) permits the remedies to be claimed as alternatives, or in addition to each other. For further information, see: Combining prerogative orders: Supperstone, Goudie and Walker on Judicial Review [16.2]. In this regard, a judicial decision that a claim for judicial review has succeeded is not, generally, sufficient to dispose of a claim (see R (LND1) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department at para [61]). Remedial discretion in judicial review It is a fundamental principle that remedies in public law are discretionary (see R (Imam) v Croydon London Borough Council at para [41]). The

Introduction to patent proceedings In England and Wales, disputes concerning patents are heard within the civil jurisdiction of the courts, which apply the substantive governing legislation (the Patents Act 1977 (PA 1977), as amended) and the common law to reach a determination pursuant to the procedural law of England and Wales (ie as laid down by the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)). Patent infringement proceedings are heard in the Intellectual Property List, in the Business and Property Division of the High Court. It includes two sub-lists: Patents Court and Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC). Remedies available from the courts of England and Wales in the context of a patent dispute, whether before, during or at the conclusion of litigation, may variously derive from the powers conferred on the courts by PA 1977, the common law or procedural law. In addition, when awarding such relief, courts must comply with the requirements of Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of IP rights (the Enforcement Directive), at least in so far as they have been incorporated

The means by which a court enforces a right or orders redress for a wrong. It can include damages (whether compensatory or restitutionary), injunctive relief (whether interim or final) and specific performance (of outstanding obligations).

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 14 March 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline CMA Article 102 TFEU/Chapter II investigation into Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited in relation to an alleged abuse of dominance through an anti-competitive discount scheme for Remicade (a form of a biological medicine called infliximab). Latest developments The CMA closed the investigation and issued a ‘no grounds for action’ decision on 14/03/2019. The decision was issued after the CMA’s case decision group concluded that MSD’s scheme was no likely to limit competition from others. Parties Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited (MSD) is a pharmaceutical company, ultimately owned by Merck & Co., Inc. a US-based global pharmaceutical group, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. Background The CMA opened its investigation on 1 December 2015. The CMA issued a statement of objections on 23 May 2017 to