cearta.ie – Page 3 – the Irish for rights

Over 100 international IP academics have supported an open academic statement co-authored by Dr Hyo Yoon Kang (Kent Law School), Dr Siva Thambisetty (London School of Economics), Dr Aisling Macmahon (Maynooth), Dr Luke McDonagh (London School of Economics) and Prof Graham Dutfield (Leeds) which provides academic justification and support for the TRIPS Waiver proposal that is currently being negotiated at the World Trade Organisation.

The Irish signatories include Prof Susi Geiger (University College Dublin), Dr Cliona Kelly (University College Dublin), and myself.

From the page announcing the letter:

The letter calls on the governments of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Australia, Brazil, Japan, Norway, Switzerland and the European Union to drop their opposition to the TRIPS Waiver proposal at the World Trade Organisation and to support the waiver.

The letter states that the TRIPS waiver is a necessary and proportionate legal measure towards the clearing of existing intellectual property barriers in order to scale up of production of COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics. It provides concise legal, political and moral justifications for the need for the Waiver as an integral part of a multi-pronged approach that must also include: global co-ordination of supply chains; streamlining regulatory approval processes and sharing exclusive data from regulatory dossiers; and investment in the WHO’s C-TAP and the mRNA technology transfer hub in South Africa.

…

Was there an automatic resulting trust HKR Middle East Architects Engineering LC v English?

21 June, 202121 June, 2021

| 2 Comments

| Restitution, Trusts

In my previous post, I discussed the unjust enrichment claim that was at least partially successful in in HKR Middle East Architects Engineering LC v English (No 1) [2019] IEHC 306 (10 May 2019); (No 2) [2021] IEHC 142 (3 March 2021); (No 3) [2021] IEHC 376 (31 May 2021). In this post, I want briefly to discuss a trust point that was not taken in the case that may have availed HKRME. In HKR v English (No 3) [2}, McDonald J recorded that, in the first stage of the case, HKRME claimed

… that the monies transferred from HKRME to the BVI entity [Sunvit] were held on trust for the children of Mr Ryan under a trust known as the Ryan Children’s Trust (“the RCT”). For reasons which are explained in the principal judgment, I came to the conclusion that, at least insofar as it purported to relate to the monies transferred to the BVI entity, the alleged trust was a sham and that the intended beneficiary of the transfers (subject to the unpaid liabilities of HKRME) was not any such trust but was instead Mr Ryan himself who had put the relevant arrangements in place with a view to concealing assets from his creditors.

…

Unjust enrichment by failure of consideration: HKR Middle East Architects Engineering LC v English

17 June, 202127 July, 2021

| 3 Comments

| Restitution

The Abu Dhabi Plaza (pictured left), in Nur-Sultan (formerly Astana), the capital city of Kazakhstan, is the highest building in Kazakhstan and Central Asia. It was designed by HKR Middle East (HKRME) Architects in the United Arab Emirates, whose principal was Dublin architect Jeremiah Ryan. To keep his UAE receipts beyond the reach of his Dublin creditors, between April 2012 and March 2013, Ryan directed HKRME to pay US$8,094,873 to Sunvit, an entity in the British Virgin Islands controlled by the defendant, Barry English, a Director of one of Ireland’s leading engineering companies. While the monies were notionally received by Sunvit, McDonald J held that English was in fact the real beneficiary, and that Sunvit was no more than a vehicle to receive funds on his behalf. HKRME sued English for the return of the monies. In a series of judgments, in HKR Middle East Architects Engineering LC v English (No 1) [2019] IEHC 306 (10 May 2019); (No 2) [2021] IEHC 142 (3 March 2021); (No 3) [2021] IEHC 376 (31 May 2021), HKRME’s claims in trust, contract, and breach of UEA law, failed. However, McDonald J held that the consideration for the payments to Sunvit had failed, such that the defendant had been unjustly enriched at the plaintiff’s expense.…

Happy Bloomsday 2021!

16 June, 202116 June, 2021

| No Comments

| General

0. Prolegomenon, or Why me?
Today is Bloomsday, the centrepiece of a five-day festival in Dublin and online celebrating the day in 1904 on which the events of James Joyce’s novel Ulysses unfold, which is the day Joyce first formally went out with Nora Barnacle. Their story is brilliantly told in the best book I’ve read this year, Nuala O’Connor‘s Nora: A Love Story of Nora Barnacle and James Joyce (New Island Books, 2021).

Several years ago, I wrote a post about Bloomsday for a blawg carnival called Blawg Review; sadly, the review is now defunct; but I thought I might revisit and update the post. Just like Oh Brother, Where art Thou?, the novel loosely parallels Homer’s Odyssey, and the original blogpost very very loosely paralleled Joyce’s Ulysses (or at least his chapter headings), to introduce some interesting contemporary legal stories. I will keep the sub-Joycean introductions, to introduce some current legal stories, and I have fixed broken links in the text that I have retained.…

The non-implementation of the DSM Directive, and the Cathach of St Columba – updated!

9 June, 202111 June, 2021

| 3 Comments

| Columba, Copyright

The EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (the DSM Directive) was due to be transposed into national law by the EU’s Member States this week. Article 29(1) of the DSM Directive (Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC) provides:

Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 7 June 2021. …

That was last Monday. Had it been Tuesday, it would have been an appropriate date for a copyright Directive to be brought into force in Ireland, as that was the anniversary of the death of St Columba (also known as St Colmcille) in 597 (I have marked this anniversary on a previous occasion on this blog). As Charleton J commented in EMI Records v Eircom Ltd [2010] 4 IR 349, [2010] IEHC 108 (16 April 2010) [28]:

There is fundamental right to copyright in Irish Law. This has existed as part of Irish legal tradition since the time of Saint Colmcille. He is often quoted in connection with the aphorism: le gach bó a buinín agus le gach leabhar a chóip (to each cow its calf and to every book its copy).

…

Incomplete copyright exceptions for public lectures in libraries, archives, and museums; but not – yet? – in galleries, educational establishments, or online. It’s all an unnecessary mess.

18 May, 202116 June, 2021

| 3 Comments

| COIPLPA, Copyright, CRC12 / CRC13, Fair use

In a recent comment to my post from last year, on Coronavirus and copyright – or, the copyright concerns of the widespread move to online instruction, I was asked about copyright when giving online lectures for local historical societies. The answer became too long and convoluted for a comment reply, so I thought I’d sketch it here in a post. It should have been a short reply, to the effect that there would be no copyright issues in the way of giving such lectures, but the more I thought about it, and the more I looked at the relevant legislation, the more complicated the answer became. This is not a good position for the law – unnecessary complexity is to the law’s eternal discredit. Indeed, I’m not even sure I’ve got to the bottom of the issue here. If anyone can advance the analysis, please feel free to let me know, either in the comments below, or via the site’s contact form. Meanwhile, this is my first stab at the issue, concluding quite a circuitous analysis with a recommendation for a rather more straightforward reform.

The first question is always whether copyright attaches to the images – as the cartoon, above left, suggests, it often feels like copyright is perpetual – but it does eventually time out.…

Samsoondar v Capital Insurance and Surrey Co Co v NHS Lincolnshire CCG – Part 7 – Defences: Change of Position, and Enrichment Pursuant to Obligation

26 March, 202115 June, 2021

| 5 Comments

| Restitution, Restitution

Thornton and Burrows This is the seventh and final post (see also parts I, II, III, IV, V and VI) discussing the opinion of Lord Burrows (pictured left, via here) giving the advice of the Privy Council in Samsoondar v Capital Insurance Company Ltd (Trinidad and Tobago) [2020] UKPC 33 (14 December 2020) (Samsoondar) and the decision of Thornton J (pictured far left, via here) in the Queen’s Bench Division in Surrey County Council v NHS Lincolnshire Clinical Commissioning Group [2020] EWHC 3550 (QB) (21 December 2020) (Surrey).

In my first post, I introduced the cases and issues. In my second post, I examined whether the defendants were enriched at the expense of the plaintiffs. In my third post, I considered whether compulsory discharge of the debt of another could have provided a cause of action in Samsoondar and Surrey, and whether Surrey could rely upon a policy-motivated cause of action, consisting in the unlawful obtaining or conferral of a benefit by a public authority. In my fourth post, I considered whether the mistaken discharge of the debt of another might have been available on the facts of both cases.…