Main stage at the Newnham June event 2016 #cambridge #mayball...

Main stage at the Newnham June event 2016 #cambridge #mayball #party #june #night #stage #concert #ball #camuni #university #cambridgeuniversity #colourful #fun #dancing http://ift.tt/1UQtooi

Silhouetted makers of macaroni and cheese, Newnham College...

Silhouetted makers of macaroni and cheese, Newnham College #macncheese #food #silhouette #shadows #night #ball #cambridge #camuni #unilife #university #cambridgeuniversity #mayweek #party #england #tent #garden http://ift.tt/238taMP

Selfless dedication

Fearless advocacy from Lord Grabiner QC in support of an argument on equitable rectification:

Lord Grabiner advances this argument with some force. He says that any other view is heresy and that he is incontrovertibly correct. Indeed he goes as far as to say that he is prepared to go to the stake on this point. One cannot but be impressed by this level of selfless dedication to his client’s cause. I am not sure whether he expects the rest of the Abbott legal team to join him on the pyre, but, a single raised eyebrow from Mr Thorley suggests that he, at least, is not going to volunteer. I hope Lord Grabiner can be persuaded to think again, otherwise it would be the end of what has the signs of being a promising career. In spite of Lord Grabiner’s threat of self immolation, or perhaps encouraged by it, Mr Vos relies on numerous authorities and references in Snell and Spry to show that Lord Grabiner’s view of the law is wrong. He also argues that, even if he were right, there are here so many documents which “cross the line” and support CAT’s case, that it succeeds anyway.

*
Citation: Cambridge Antibody Technology v Abbott Biotechnology Ltd [2004] EWHC 2974 (Pat), [106] (Laddie J)

Swiftly dismissed

A recent copyright claim brought by an American composer against Taylor Swift was dismissed with irredeemable irony. The claim alleged that Ms Swift had incorporated a 22-word phrase into the lyrics for "Shake It Off". Dismissing the claim, the judge commented:

“At present, the Court is not saying that Braham can never, ever, ever get his case back in court. But, for now, we have got problems, and the Court is not sure Braham can solve them.

As currently drafted, the Complaint has a blank space — one that requires Braham to do more than write his name. And, upon consideration of the Court’s explanation … Braham may discover that mere pleading Band-Aids will not fix the bullet holes in his case.

At least for the moment, Defendants have shaken off this lawsuit.”

*
Citation: Braham v Swift (Unreported, 10 November 2015, Standish J)

The aftermath

After Kipling, presumably:

“After a ‘great’ constitutional case, the tumult and the shouting dies. The captains and the kings depart. Or at least the captains do; the Queen in Parliament remains forever. Solicitors-General go. New Solicitors-General come. This world is transitory. But some things never change. The flame of the Commonwealth’s hatred for that beneficial constitutional guarantee, s 51(xxxi), may flicker, but it will not die. That is why it is eternally important to ensure that that flame does not start a destructive blaze.”

JT International SA v Commonwealth [2012] HCA 43 (5 October 2012) (Heydon J)

The literary Justice Heydon

“This great renversement des alliances created a new and unexpected hurdle for the defendants. So the Court was as on a darkling plain, swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight, where ignorant armies clash by night – although the parties were more surprised than ignorant.”

Williams v Commonwealth [2012] HCA 23 (20 June 2012)

"MR GLEESON: Your Honour, that hypothesis would remove some of the critical planks that I am relying..."

MR GLEESON: Your Honour, that hypothesis would remove some of the critical planks that I am relying upon, but not all of them. It would remove some of the critical planks because we would no longer have punishment per se, we would no longer have the public order injunction. We would be closer to the area of private law rights.

HEYDON J: What if the individuals who were damaged did not bother about the Commission and just brought their own action? They are still relying on a public order statute.

MR GLEESON: Yes. That again has removed a further plank from our argument and is closer to the area of —

HEYDON J: I just want to see how much we jettison before we start swimming.” - P T Garuda Indonesia Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2012] HCATrans 101 (8 May 2012)

A wayward Chevy struck a tree

Aspiring poet-judges take note, for this is possibly the best (or worst) example of judicial prose in the brief history of the genre.

A wayward Chevy struck a tree
Whose owner sued defendants three.
He sued car’s owner, driver, too,
And insurer for what was due
For his oak tree that now may bear
A lasting need for tender care.

The Oakland County Circuit Court,
John N O’Brian, J, set forth
The judgment that defendants sought,
And quickly an appeal was brought.
Court of Appeals, J H Gillis, J,
Gave thought and then had this to say:

1) There is no liability,
Since No-Fault grants immunity,
2) No jurisdiction can be found
Where process service is unsound;

And thus the judgment, as it’s termed
Is due to be, and is
Affirmed.

*
Citation: 333 NW 2d 67 (Mich App, 1983) (citations omitted)

French Supreme Court orders de-indexing of autocomplete search queries

French Supreme Court orders de-indexing of autocomplete search queries: In a claim brought by a French collecting society, the Cour de Cassation has ordered Google to delete the keywords “Torrent”, “Rapidshare” and “Megaupload” from its auto-completion keyword suggestion tool for French users.

The basis for the injunction is that Google is facilitating — providing the ‘means’ — of infringing the claimants’ copyrights.  However, the Court confirmed that Google is not itself legally responsible for any infringements taking place on sites linked to in search results, even where it suggests the query.  Sensibly, this is because subsequent infringements require ‘a voluntary act of the user’.
Nevertheless, the balance of convenience favoured injunctive relief since this would provide an easy way to reduce infringement by making it more difficult for users to locate infringing materials (even though they still remain available).
The Court qualified its order by noting that it is “without … any reason to expect total efficiency”.  In other words, if Google’s automated keyword de-indexing fails to remove all queries related to the infringements, it won’t be in breach of the order.  This makes sense given that suggestions are generated algorithmically and not actively monitored by Google.
The decision isn’t really surprising — Google has already been filtering certain keywords (mostly relating to pornographic, illegal and infringing materials) from autocomplete since mid-2010.  However, it does confirm the Court’s power to grant an injunction under the Enforcement Directive if Google’s voluntary removal doesn’t go far enough.  Read more »