Court of Appeal Upholds Dismissal of Recognition Action Based on Limitation Period

Andrew Ottaway, B.A. (Hons.), LL.B.Appeals, Appellate Advocacy, Business Litigation, Civil Litigation, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Cross-Border Litigation, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Injunction & Specific Performance, Mareva Injunction, Of Interest to US Counsel0 Comments

In Grayson Consulting Inc. v. Lloyd, 2019 ONCA 79, the plaintiff obtained default judgment in South Carolina dated August 20, 2014 default judgment in the amount of US $451,435,577.37 against the defendant.   The plaintiff sought a Mareva injunction (i.e. a freezing order). Although the Court initially granted the injunction, the Court later set aside the injunction in response to the defendant’s motion arguing that the Ontario proceedings were commenced outside the limitation period.  See our blog on the motion decision here. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reiterated the applicable test from Independence Plaza 1 Associates, L.L.C. v. Figliolini, 2017 ONCA 44, being: (i) the basic two-year limitation period applies to a proceeding on a foreign judgment; and (ii) the limitation period begins to run when the time to appeal the foreign judgment has expired or, if an appeal is taken, the date of the appeal decision, unless the claim … Read More

Shifting The Status of Interlocutory Injunctions: Google v. Equustek Solutions

Janice Perri, B.A. (Summa Cum Laude)Business Litigation, Civil Litigation, Cross-Border Litigation, eCommerce | Online Retail, Injunction & Specific Performance, Internet | Technology, Jurisdictional Challenges, Mareva Injunction, Norwich Order, Passing Off, Technology and Internet, Trademark Infringement0 Comments

The very interconnectedness of the Internet that drives business forward through marketing and access to broader consumer bases may result in loses that currently are not easily remedied. However, jurisprudential shifts are occurring to bridge gaps in the common law that are prevalent in the new age of technology. Google v. Equustek Solutions is a recent decision that potentially expands the scope of interlocutory injunctions in order to ensure that trademark passing-off does not continue to be facilitated, even if unintentionally, by a non-party. Equustek was entitled to an interlocutory injunction to enjoin Google from displaying Datalink’s websites on any of its search results worldwide, and despite Google’s appeal, the decision was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in a 7-2 decision. Justice Abella, writing for the majority, emphasized the importance of deference and discretion with regards to interlocutory injunctions, which is highly context-driven to ensure just and equitable outcomes (para 22). The Court found the three-part test in RJR – MacDonald … Read More

London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) – New Rules Include Expanded Provisions on Emergency Relief

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Q.Arb, Lawyer and ArbitratorArbitration, Business Litigation, Commercial Arbitration, Commercial Litigation, Copyright Infringement, Cross-Border Litigation, Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Fashion Industry, Industrial Design, Injunction & Specific Performance, Intellectual Property, International Sale of Goods, Mareva Injunction, Of Interest to US Counsel, Preservation Orders, Textiles and Apparel0 Comments

The London Court of International Arbitration has announced that its new LCIA Arbitration Rules have been formally adopted by the LCIA Court and the LCIA Board of Directors and will come into effect on 1 October 2014. Article 9B of the new LCIA Arbitration Rules – Emergency Arbitrator provides that in the case of emergency at any time prior to the formation or expedited formation of the Arbitral Tribunal , any party may apply to the LCIA Court for the immediate appointment of a temporary sole arbitrator to conduct emergency proceedings pending the formation or expedited formation of the Arbitral Tribunal. By Article 9.14 of the New Rules, Article 9B does not apply where the parties have concluded their arbitration agreement before 1 October 2014 have not agreed in writing to ‘opt in’ to Article 9B, or the parties have agreed in writing at any time to ‘opt out’ of Article 9B. Reference should be had in this regard to … Read More