Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Feb-09-1950
lord simonds my lords, this appeal, which is brought by may and baker ltd., an english company, and ciba ltd., a swiss corporation, from the unanimous judgment of the court of appeal affirming a judgment of mr. justice jenkins, raises a question of some difficulty. the order of mr. justice jenkins dealt with two matters, (da petition by the present respondents, boots pure crug company ltd., for the revocation of certain letters patent no. 533,495 which had been granted to the appellants jointly and (2) a motion by the appellants that they might be at liberty to amend the specification of those letters patent in the manner which i shall later describe. the learned judge revoked the letters patent and refused leave to amend. before the court of appeal the only matter in issue was whether the learned judge had rightly refused leave to amend, the appellants having conceded that, if that leave was not given, they could not resist revocation. the court of appeal (lord greene, m.r., and somervell and evershed, l.j.j.) were unanimous in holding that the learned judge had rightly refused leave to amend. it is that matter alone which is now for your lordships' consideration. before i refer to the relevant facts i will state the section of the patents and designs acts, 1907 to 1946, under which leave to amend is sought. by s. 22 of the act (as i will call it) it is provided that - "in any action for infringement of a patent or proceedings before a court for the revocation of a patent .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Dec-13-1950
..... university education for boys coming from a particular school. the common quality binding the members of that class seems to reside in the fact that their parents or guardians all contracted for their schooling with the same establishment or body. that the school in such a case may itself be a charitable foundation seems altogether beside the point and quite insufficient ..... particular occupations and is not an element relevant to this issue. in principle 1 am unable to say that any public element can be born out of the several private contracts between a particular employer and his employees. the appellant would not boldly submit that when the common employer employed two servants the public element at once emerged. he said it ..... not help the appellant, for there is no public element in the relationship of parent and child. the common attribute that each parent has a contract of service with the same employer remains for consideration. a contract of service is in a high degree personal, and it constitutes a personal and private relationship between the parties. what-ever the number of the .....Tag this Judgment!