Wind farm manufacturers are likely to have to ensure that their designs go
well beyond the requirements of international standards after a landmark
ruling from the UK’s highest court.
Lawyers predicted yesterday that the judgment in the long-running dispute,
MT Højgaard v E.ON, which was handed down yesterday in the Supreme Court,
would “come as a shock� to the renewable energy industry. The judges
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, the court’s president, Lord Mance, Clarke
of Stone-cum-Ebony, Lord Sumption and Lord Hodge unanimously found that
the contractor, MT Højgaard, was under an obligation to ensure that the
offshore wind farm foundations would have a minimum lifetime of 20 years.
Mark de la Haye, a lawyer at Clyde & Co, a City of London law firm, said
“this effectively placed on the contractor the consequences of an error
in the international standard to which they were working�. De la Haye
predicted that the implications of the judgment were that “in the absence
of clear wording to the contrary, contractors may unwittingly be obliged to
ensure that their work goes above and beyond current international design
standards�.
The lawyer argued that the ruling would also have ramifications beyond the
offshore industry. He said it “could significantly affect the terms of
future contracts, the risk assessment of existing contracts, as well as
insurance and finance arrangements in the offshore wind farm sector�.
The legal team for the appellant in the case was led by John Marrin, QC, of
Keating Chambers in London, who was instructed by the Anglo-Canadian firm
Gowling WLG. David Streatfeild-James, QC, of Atkin Chambers in Gray’s
Inn, lead the legal team for the respondent, instructed by the law firm
Fenwick Elliott.
Supreme Court ruling on ‘grey market’ goods is black and white
Supreme Court judges also dealt a potentially fatal blow to so-called grey
market goods by ruling that their sale is a criminal offence.
The case involved allegations, which have yet to be proved, against three
anonymous appellants are that they are engaged in the bulk import and sale
of goods bearing registered trademarks that were manufactured in countries
outside the EU. A significant portion of the goods said to be sold by the
appellants were manufactured, and the trademark applied, with the
permission of the trademark proprietor, but were then sold without the
trademark proprietor’s consent.
These are known as “grey market� goods as distinguished from true
counterfeits, which are manufactured without the authorisation of the
trademark proprietor.
Lord Neuberger, sitting with Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Hughes and
Lord Hodge unanimously ruled that they sale of grey goods was a criminal
offence.
Andrew Stone, an intellectual property specialist at the London law firm
Clarke Willmott, described the ruling as “a solid blow against the
convoluted arguments which infringers regularly try to put forward�.
Stone said the ruling was “a real boost to brand owners who can use this
as another tool in their armoury to prevent counterfeiters�.
The lawyer advised that trademark owners should review the agreements they
have in place with their authorised manufacturers to ensure that they deal
with the issue of grey market items by having strict controls over
production. They should also implicitly state that grey market goods are
not authorised, must not be sold by the factories and are to be returned to
the brand owner or be de-branded and destroyed.
“The trademark owners can then rely on such agreements at court should
this be required to support criminal cases against the sellers of grey
market items,� Stone said.
Henry Blaxland, QC, of Garden Court Chambers in Lincoln’s Inn, and
Michael Bromley Martin, QC, of Three Raymond Buildings in Gray’s Inn, led
the teams for the appellants, and were instructed by the London and
Manchester law firm Stokoe Partnership Solicitors. Julian Christopher, QC,
of 5 Paper Buildings in the Temple, appeared for the respondent, instructed
by the Crown Prosecution Service.
Try the new Yahoo Mail
0 Comments