Smith Kline Beecham v Apotex (Charles Mitchell, 25 May 2006)

Of course it's just a tree. What does it look like ?

RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

Sender:	Charles Mitchell
Date:	Thu, 25 May 2006 16:34:17 +0100
Re:	Smith Kline Beecham v Apotex

Where an interim injunction is granted against X without a cross-undertaking to pay damages by Y, and the injunction is discharged at trial, can X claim restitution of benefits accruing to Y during the currency of the injunction, which Y would not have gained, but for the injunction? In Smith Kline Beecham v Apotex [2005] EWHC 1655 (Ch) Lewison J said no. The CA has now affirmed: [2006] EWCA Civ 658 - with lengthy discussion of the restitution claim by Jacob LJ at [33]-[82].

Professor Charles Mitchell
School of Law
King's College London
Strand
London WC2R 2LS

tel: 020 7848 2290
fax: 020 7848 2465

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "

»
»
»
»
»

For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.