The Legal 500 > Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP > Manchester, ENGLAND

Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP

27TH FLOOR, CITY TOWER, PICCADILLY PLAZA, MANCHESTER, M1 4BD, ENGLAND

Tel:: Work 0161 238 4900
Fax:: Fax 0161 237 5357

Web:: www.ffw.com
Email:

Paris, Palo Alto, Munchen, Manchester, London, Hamburg and 2 more

Further information on Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP

Please choose from this list to view details of what we say about Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP in other jurisdictions.

Belgium

Offices in Brussels

Germany

Offices in Hamburg, Munchen, and Dusseldorf

France

Offices in Paris

London

Offices in London

Search News and Articles

Legal Developments by:
Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP

Is comparative advertising unfair?

THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE (ECJ) IS IN THE midst of considering questions referred to it by the UK courts in three separate cases that should clarify the law regarding comparative advertising. This type of advertising, particularly when it identifies a competitor or a competitor’s goods or services by referring to a registered trade mark, is of particular concern to trade mark owners as their competitors normally seek to make unfavourable comparisons with their own goods or services, or to take advantage of being associated with the market leader’s brand.

- Field Fisher Waterhouse

Legal Developments in the UK

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to

Getting the breaks

Shook, Hardy & Bacon currently authors the Insurance section of The In-House Lawyer magazine. For more information and articles from this author click here .

- Falcon Chambers
Product liability and dietary supplements

Shook, Hardy & Bacon currently authors the Insurance section of The In-House Lawyer magazine. For more information and articles from this author click here .

- Shook, Hardy & Bacon International LLP
The calm before  the storm: are  you prepared for  a dawn raid?

WilmerHale currently authors the Fraud and Corporate Crime section of The In-House Lawyer magazine. For more information and articles from this author click here .

- WilmerHale
International shipment of waste: transporters beware

Burges Salmon LLP currently authors the Environment and Energy section of The In-House Lawyer magazine. For more information and articles from this author click here

- Burges Salmon LLP
Revisiting Bartoline

Macfarlanes LLP currently authors the Litigation & Dispute Resolution section of The In-House Lawyer magazine. For more information and articles from this author click here .

- Macfarlanes
Rent in administration proceedings: a headache for landlords

Druces currently authors the Insolvency and corporate restructuring section of The In-House Lawyer magazine. For more information and articles from this author click here .

- Druces
It’s a new dawn, it’s a new day

Arnold & Porter (UK) LLP currently authors the EU & Competition section of The In-House Lawyer magazine. For more information and articles from this author click here .

- Arnold & Porter (UK) LLP
Court of Appeal provides useful guidance on the  test for remoteness  of damages for  breach o

Edwards Wildman Palmer UK LLP currently authors the Contract section of The In-House Lawyer magazine. For more information and articles from this author click here .

- Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
Unsafe products:  identifying serious risks and notifying the relevant authorities

Shook, Hardy & Bacon currently authors the Insurance section of The In-House Lawyer magazine. For more information and articles from this author click here . In the event that a safety problem is identified with one of your products, you will need to undertake a risk assessment to comply with the General Product Safety Directive.

- Shook, Hardy & Bacon International LLP
Supreme Court provides guidance  on forum conveniens and piercing the corporate veil 

Macfarlanes LLP currently authors the Litigation & Dispute Resolution section of The In-House Lawyer magazine. For more information and articles from this author click here . This article considers the Supreme Court decision in VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp & or s [2013]. Perhaps the most striking aspect of the case is that it casts doubt on the notion that the Court has the power to pierce the corporate veil. The Supreme Court also held that, even if the power to pierce the corporate veil does exist, it does not enable a claimant to hold parties that control a company jointly and severally liable under contracts entered into by that company.  

- Macfarlanes