WWF (Andrew Burrows, 3 Apr 2007)

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:	Andrew Burrows
Date:	Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:15:59 +0100
Re:	WWF

My own view is that, while I think the actual decision (that it would be an abuse of process to amend to run a Wrotham Park argument having not been allowed to amend to run a Blake argument) may be correct, many colleagues are being far too kind to Chadwick LJ in relation to the dreadful para 59. All clarity in terminology is lost if, like him, we start saying that an account of profits is a compensatory and not a 'gains-based' remedy.

Andrew Burrows

<== 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.