Hutton v Eyre
(1815) 6 Taunt 289, 128 ER 1046.95.Mr Harbottle responds that this argument cannot be sustained in face of the wording that Oran ‘have no claim against you, Richard Burke’. I am with Mr Harbottle. In my judgment the Oran Release is unambiguously a release, which is why I have referred to it as such throughout this judgment.
In the absence of an express reservation of a right to sue Ross Melville and Oranmore, is there any basis for implying a reservation of a right to sue?
96.Mr Moody-Stuart submits for Oran that on a proper construction, the Oran Release only acts to release Richard Burke from personal liability, and not any joint tortfeasors, because the words ‘Richard Burke, whether acting alone or in combination with others as a joint tortfeasor’ do not appear in the Oran Release and should not be read into it. Mr Harbottle submits that as Oran did not reserve its rights against Ross Melville and Oranmore in the Compromise Agreement, it follows that they are released. 97.It appears to me, with great respect, that Mr Moody-Stuart is approaching this from the wrong direction and Mr Harbottle from the right one. The general rule at common law is that where a person has a cause of action against two or more joint tortfeasors, a settlement by which he releases one or more of them operates as a release of the others. This is subject to an exception, namely where the settlement agreement for the release of one or more of them contains a reservation of his right to sue the others (Watts v Aldington). That reservation may be express or implied. Accordingly, it is not the case that where a settlement agreement is silent as to the reservation of a right to sue joint tortfeasors, as in the Compromise Agreement, joint tortfeasors are not released unless there is an express or implied term releasing them. Rather, joint tortfeasors are also released, unless a reservation of the right to sue can be implied. Mr Moody-Stuart makes no argument for the implication of a term reserving the right to sue Oranmore and Ross Melville. In fact he specifically states in his Additional Submissions that he does not seek the implication of such a term.
- Defendants
- INTRODUCTION
- WITNESSES
- The claims
- www.oranmore.co.uk
- Undisputed issues
- Oran’s position - Infringement
- Oran’s Position - Passing off
- Oranmore’s Defences
- Relevant matrix of facts
- Findings of fact on disputed issues
- The Law
- Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank
- Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd v National Westminster Bank plc
- Arnold v Britton & Ors
- Rainy Sky
- Submissions and discussion by issue
- Factual context
- Documentary context
- Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v Ali
- Commercial context
- Decision on scope of the Compromise Agreement
- Watts v Aldington
- Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd v National Westminster Bank
- Hutton v Eyre
- Conclusion – Compromise Agreement
- TRADE MARK INFRINGEMENT
- Interflora v Marks & Spencer
- Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd v Asda Stores Ltd
- Comic Enterprises Ltd v Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp
- Specsavers
- Maier
- Interflora
- Honda Motor Co Ltd v Neesam
- Issues 3 and 4 - Is there similarity between Oranmore Signs and the Registered Mark such that, when used with identical goods and services, there is a likelihood of confusion?
- Issue 3 - Comparison between Registered Mark and signs
- Issue 5 - Evidence of actual confusion
- Issue 4 - Likelihood of confusion
- Copyright Licence
- Zino Davidoff SA v AG Import Ltd (and others)
- Zino Davidoff SA v A & G Imports Limited and Levi Strauss & Co v Tesco Stores Limited
- Mastercigars Direct Ltd v Hunters & Frankau Ltd
- Davidoff
- Issues 15 - 20 – Acquiescence
- Conclusion on infringement
- PASSING OFF
- Reckitt & Colman Product v Borden
- Annex 1
