See TRIBUNAL in Action

The majority finds that National Health Systems breached the applicable standard of care by failing to implement the post-operative monitoring protocol recommended by the AMA. The causal link between the delayed detection and the plaintiff’s permanent injury is well-established by expert evidence. The award is reduced by 15% under comparative negligence principles.

The collegial panel unanimously finds that the employer’s termination lacked lawful basis. The employer could not substantiate any of the grounds enumerated under Art. 39 or Art. 40 of the Labour Contract Law. The systematic underpayment of social insurance further demonstrates the employer’s disregard for statutory obligations.

The majority holds that AutoTech AG breached the supply agreement by failing to observe the mandatory 12-month notice period. While force majeure was pleaded, the supply chain disruptions cited were foreseeable at the time of contract formation and cannot excuse performance. Damages are reduced for partial failure to mitigate.

The court unanimously finds infringement of all three asserted claims. The defendant’s manufacturing process employs an equivalent method that falls within the patent’s scope under the doctrine of equivalents. The invalidity defense fails as the prior art references, taken individually or in combination, do not render the patent obvious.

The majority holds that the plaintiff’s 14-month delay in furnishing required documentation constituted a failure to demonstrate readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The developer’s rescission was lawful given the contractual time-is-of-the-essence clause. Specific performance is denied as damages provide an adequate remedy.

The court holds that the Commissioners’ decision was vitiated by a failure to consider the updated environmental impact assessment, which constituted a mandatory material consideration. The procedural unfairness in failing to consult affected residents compounds the unlawfulness. The decision must be quashed.

The majority holds that the structural defects fall squarely within the scope of the décennale guarantee under Art. 1792 of the Code civil. The court-appointed expert’s report conclusively establishes that the defects originated during construction and render the building unfit for purpose. The defendant bears strict liability regardless of fault.

The court unanimously holds that Banco Nacional S.A. violated the consumer’s fundamental right to clear information under the Código de Defesa do Consumidor. The unauthorized charges and abusive interest rates constitute flagrant violations of consumer protection law. Under the inverted burden of proof, the bank failed to demonstrate the consumer’s informed and voluntary consent.

The court unanimously holds that Milano Design Srl’s use of the contested mark constitutes trademark infringement under Art. 20 of the Codice della Proprietà Industriale. The consumer survey evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates likelihood of confusion. The defendant’s adoption of the mark was in bad faith, having been aware of the plaintiff’s prior rights and international reputation.

The majority holds that the impugned regulation infringes the applicant’s Section 6 Charter rights and cannot be saved under Section 1. Applying the Oakes test, while the government’s objective of transport safety is pressing and substantial, the regulation fails at the minimal impairment stage. Less restrictive means were available to achieve the same safety objectives.