High Court

The standard forms of contract invariably contain agreements to arbitrate in the event of a dispute and some even name the arbitrator or a professional body who will appoint an arbitrator, upon the application of one of the parties. Where no agreement to arbitrate exists, the injured party may sue in either a County Court or High Court, depending upon the value of the claim, and he must then prove his case before a judge. 

If the authority are of the opinion that magistrate s court action will not give an adequate remedy a complaint may be made to the High Court. This court will issue an injunction prohibiting the repeat of the nuisance. Non-compliance with an injunction constitutes contempt of court and penalties include imprisonment. 

An interesting legal case ensued in the English High Court [87], where Ethicon (Johnson Johnson) maintained, among other things, that the formation and hydrolytic behaviour of polyglycolide fibres were already known and that it was therefore obvious to use the material as an absorbable suture. The outcome was basically favourable to American Cyanamid. 

Barnard, D. 2002. In the High Court of South Africa, Case No. 4138/98 The Global Politics of Access to Low-Cost AIDS Drugs in Poor Countries. Kennedy Institute of Ethics lournal 12(2) 159-174. 

High Court. XYZ and others (Claimants) versus (1) Schering Health Care Limited, (2) Organon Laboratories Limited and (3) John Wyeth Brother Limited. Judgement by the Hon. Mr Justice Mackay. London, 29 July 2002. Case No 0002638. Neutral Citation No (2002) EWHC 1420 (QB). 

Trial District Court Stuttgart, ref. 17 KLs 83/94, Letter of the 17th Criminal Justice Chamber of the District Court of Stuttgart to the Federal High Court (BGH) on April 21, 1994. Investigation File 2, sheet 768. Answer of the Federal High Court on April 26, 1994 with enclosure decision on March 15, 1994 re G. A. Deckert, ref. 1 StR 179/93. 

Determining the scope of a patent is usually a fairly technical pro-ceding and should be reserved for the specialist. The final answer must, of course, rest with the court of last resort. While the Supreme Court of the United States has the last say in the matter, it is rather seldom that a patent reaches the high court for adjudication. Both patent lawyers and judges find the determination of the question a difficult one, and even the examiners in the Patent Office, while the patent is pending, do not always have an easy time in deciding what is or is not patentable. Of course, the fact that lawyers often differ in their estimates of the scope of a patent makes for law suits. In this respect law suits on patents do not differ from those involving other branches of law. 

Having now some notion of how a patent specification should be drawn, let us apply our knowledge to an actual patent. The patent I wish to discuss—Jones, Kennedy, and Rotermund (9) — issued on June 9, 1936, originally to Union Carbide Carbon Corp. An examination of the reports reveals that this patent has the distinction of being the last one to have been sustained by the U. S. Supreme Court. To be sure, since the Union Carbide case, the high court has taken a number of patent cases for consideration, but save for the so-called A P case (/), in which the patent was held void, none required consideration of the issues of validity and infringment. 

In many countries in Europe even neutral researchers are not in a position today to approach Holocaust studies with the hypothesis that certain events did not take place. They too are condemned without any examination of their arguments, on the grounds of self-evidence of the opposite of their theses, and with that they are deprived of their social existence. In 1992 the Provincial High Court and Court of Appeal in Diisseldorf, seconding a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, did decide that self-evidence may be reversed if completely new evidence, or such that is superior to past evidence, is presented, requiring a retrial of the matter at hand.340... 

In December 1979, the High Court of British Columbia mled that the Canadian Narcotics law prohibits psilocybin only in its pure form, whereas mushrooms containing the alkaloid as a natural ingredient are exempt from the law. This decision seems both realistic and reasonable, considering the substantial, uncontrollable spread of these mushrooms and an ongoing battle against truly addictive drugs that requires all available efforts and resources. 

The definition of a medicine in Act 101 of 1965 above is wide-ranging. It covers cill substcmces that claim to be medicines, claim to be suitable for use as a medicine, or are used as a medicine. There is active debate on whether this definition is too broad. In a recent High Court decision (MCC vs. Reitzer Pharmaceuticcils), Judge de Villiers ruled that the definition was not too broad. He did rule that the matter might be debated further by the Constitutional Court of South Africa. 

Under the Medicines Act, the licensing system for MAs, Manufacturer s, and Wholesale Dealer s Licences, and for Clinical Trial Certificates, allows the opportunity for an applicant or licence holder to appeal against an unfavourable recommendation or decision, right up to the High Court if necessary, although that has rarely happened. Nevertheless, appeals to the appropriate advisory committee such as the Committee on Safety of Medicines, and to the Medicines Commission, are commonplace in the process leading to grant of an MA. Appeals may also arise in connection with the suspension, revocation, or compulsory variation of MAs or certificates. Manufacturer s Licences and Wholesale Dealer s Licences are rarely subject of the need for such appeal action. 

Medicines Control Agency carries the potential for public censure of the medical advisor, financial penalty and perhaps even trial in the high court. 

The Supreme Court has also spoken on the issue of risk assessment in ways that are troublesome and confusing. The occasion for the High Court s involvement with chemical risks was a lawsuit by the petroleum industry challenging the new workplace standard for benzene promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)... 

Sutton vs. United Air Lines, 97-1943, 1999. L. Greenhouse, High Court limits who is protected by disability law, New York Times, June 23, 1999, Internet edition. 

In certain drcums ces, the Authority may apply under Section 39 of the 1989 Act to the High Court for an Order in relation to certain activities. This can be obtained on an ex parte basis, that is, without notice to the employer concerned. These orders are usually obtained where physical hazards and significant deficiencies in health and safety management cause the Authority to consider the risk to persons to be very serious. 

THK Co Ltd v. Tsubakimoto Precision Products Co Ltd. (1994). Tokyo High court. 

Genentech Inc. v. Sumitomo Pharmaceuticals Company Ltd. (1996). Osaka High Court. 

A very simple method of reusing old tires in landfills could have been a possibility. But in Europe, the Landfill Directive has banned the disposal of shredded tires in landfills since July 2006. It should be added that whole tires have been banned from landfills since 2003 [11]. Elsewhere, a high court directive [65] did not permit burning of scrap tires as a substitute fuel in cement kilns for pollution reasons. 

Macrory R. Sept. 2002. High court rejects cement tyre burning challenge. ENDS... 

Porton Down in the UK was a biochemical research facility. In the mid-1950s, part of its research activities were concerned with the effects of nerve gases. One young serviceman was asked to participate in an experiment to find a cure for the common cold. It is claimed that he was actually exposed to a nerve toxin, sarin, and subsequently died. As recently as 2002 the British High Court gave the go-ahead for a new inquest into the death. Ethical issues in medical research have a habit of not going away until there is complete resolution. 

Wermid, Stephen. 1991. High Court Lets Stand the Conviction of Employers in Workplace Safety Case. The Wall Street Journal. February 20 B4. 

A unique feature of the Targeted Killings Case is that it provides the most detailed and considered judicial interpretation to date of proportionality in a targeting context. In doing so it innoduced the concept of a zone of proportionality when assessing the respective roles of the court (i.e., accountability) and the military commander (i.e., the targeting assessment). As the Israel High Court of Justice stated ... 

---