Please sign in with your existing account details.
Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.
Privacy statement - Terms and conditions
Forgotten your password?
You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password.
Are you sure you want to remove this item from you pinned content?
Once again MediaCAT and its representative ACS: Law (acting by its only partner Mr Crossley) have been dragged before the courts, this time to answer a claim for the Defendants costs in dealing with the allegations. As reported previously, this case related to ACS: Law’s questionable conduct in pursuing internet users who it alleged had been involved in the illegal online sharing of pornographic films.
Judge Birss QC ordered that MediaCAT (who did not attend the hearing) pay the Defendant’s costs in the matter and made a ‘stage one wasted costs’ order against ACS: Law. This is a punitive order made against a party’s legal representative where the representative has acted ‘improperly, unreasonably or negligently’. Judge Birss was highly critical of Mr Crossley’s actions through ACS: Law, criticising his “improper and champterous” documents and “plainly negligent” drafting. ACS: Law now has an opportunity to answer these findings.
Clearly the Judge was not happy with ACS: Law and MediaCAT’s blanket approach of demanding cash settlements from suspected file sharers, demonstrating that a more responsible approach should be taken when dealing with such suspected infringements.
One of the requirements for tenants to contract out of the security of tenure regime contained in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 is that they make a simple or statutory declaration before entering into the lease.
View blog
Whilst this decision may not be surprising, it will undoubtedly send a chill down the spine of retailers in a similar position to The Fragrance Shop.
The Supreme Court has decided a significant appeal on the Upper Tribunal’s power to discharge or modify restrictive covenants pursuant to section 84(1) of the Law of Property Act (“1925 Act”).
Ambitious funding plans, announced recently by the Prime Minister, have made clear that spending on school buildings is seen as a key element of efforts to stimulate the economy post-COVID.
Legal Director
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up