Proposed reliance on clauses 4.3 and 4.4 of 2001 Agreement
38.39.Mr Hebden seeks permission to plead a restraint of trade case to be run in the alternative if his case that the 2001 Agreement imposes continuing obligations upon the Defendant to exploit fails. Paragraph 19D pleads that the consequences of success on the restraint of trade case would be either:(i)that the agreement is void as from its conclusion and/or unenforceable; or (ii)that the agreement is voidable and/or unenforceable.40.41.Finally, the draft APOC adds some further prayers for relief reflecting the draft claims.
- Introduction
- Procedural history
- The applications
- The SJ Application
- Jameel v Dow Jones and Co
- The Amendment Application
- Conduct of the hearing
- Relevant factual background
- Term
- RELEASE COMMITMENT
- The legal test for permission to amend
- Quah Su-Ling v Goldman Sachs International
- The proposed amendments for which permission is sought
- Express or implied duty to exploit/duty of good faith
- Proposed reliance on clauses 4.3 and 4.4 of 2001 Agreement
- Submissions / assessment
- Express or implied duty to exploit/duty of good faith – inconsistency of pleadings – submissions
- Express or implied duty to exploit/duty of good faith – inconsistency of pleadings – assessment
- Express or implied duty to exploit/duty of good faith – substance – submissions
- Panayiotou
- Nichols
- Schroeder
- John v James
- Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corp Ltd
- Express or implied duty to exploit/duty of good faith – assessment
- Express or implied duty to exploit/duty of good faith – consequences of breach – submissions
- Copinger and Skone-James on Copyright
- Crosstown Music Co LLC v Rive Droite Music Ltd & ors
- Crosstown
- Express or implied duty to exploit/duty of good faith – consequences of breach – assessment
- Sullivan