UK: Electronic Databases: Protecting Your Investment: An Analysis Of The Legal Rights In Electronic Databases Under UK Law

Last Updated: 23 November 2006
Article by Paul O'Hare

1. Introduction

Electronic databases are an important part of the information economy.1 The Internet, and the development of on-line services as an effective business tool, has meant that electronic databases are now one of the key platforms for the delivery of information and content. As such, electronic databases are now viewed as a valuable business asset, with database producers and owners keen to ensure that the commercial value inherent in their databases is properly protected.

In 1996, the European Commission adopted directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases ("Database Directive").2 This was implemented in the UK by the Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997 ("UK Regulations"). One of the principal objectives of the Database Directive was to promote investment in the creation of databases throughout the EU. This was to be achieved by the introduction of a new sui generis database right.3

This sui generis right built on existing legal and equitable rights which were capable of applying to electronic databases under UK law Ė namely, copyright, confidentiality and contract.

The European Court of Justice, in a series of judgments handed down in November 2004, has ruled on the extent and scope of the protection offered by database right.4 As discussed briefly below, these rulings have significantly curtailed the scope of that right. As a consequence, the other legal rights which can apply to electronic databases are likely to assume a more important role in allowing database producers to protect and exploit the commercial value inherent in their databases.

The UK courtsí recent decision in Navitaire5 has important implications for the copyright protection afforded to database application software (and computer programs generally) and, in particular to the copyright protection afforded to "look and feel" elements of those software programs.

This article examines the legal and equitable rights that are capable of applying to electronic databases, and the role they can play in the protection and commercialisation of such databases.

2. Components of an Electronic Database

An electronic database typically consists of an operating platform (the hardware and operating system software on which the database resides), the database application software (the family of programs used to manipulate the database), the data, and the database itself (by which we mean the aggregated collection of data). In addition, between the database software application layer and the data sits the database architecture, comprising the structure and schema of the database. Each of these components can attract a range of different rights under UK law.

3. Rights in the database

We are referring here to the database in its narrowest sense Ė the aggregated collection of data Ė as opposed to any of the other components which make up an electronic database. There are two key rights which can subsist in the database: copyright and database right. In general terms, copyright protects the intellectual skill and labour in the selection and arrangement of the database; database right protects the investment needed to obtain, verify and present the contents of the database. The two rights are independent, with different conditions required for subsistence, different durations and different prohibited acts. Whether a database attracts one or both of these rights will depend on the nature of the database and the date of its creation.

3.1. Copyright Protection of Electronic Databases.

3.1.1 Copyright in Data Compilations

Prior to the implementation of the Database Directive, databases were capable of copyright protection under UK law as "tables and compilations".6 Provided a data compilation was "original", copyright would subsist. The originality threshold was the one that applied, and which continues to apply, to most other literary works: a sufficient degree of skill, labour and judgement must have gone into the creation of those works. There is no statutory definition of originality in this context, but case law has established that the threshold is low and, in general terms, can be regarded as having been met as long as the compilation has not been copied from another work, and that more than "negligible" or "trivial" effort has gone into its creation. Under this originality test, copyright has been found to subsist in a wide range of data compilations, including telephone directories, football fixture lists, and television programme listings. Most electronic databases would, therefore, have attracted copyright prior to implementation of the Database Directive.

3.1.2. Database Copyright

The Database Directive changed this position in two important ways. First, it introduced into UK law a statutory definition of database: "a collection of independent works, data or other materials which (a) are arranged in a systematic or methodical way, and (b) are individually accessible by electronic or other means".7 Second, it introduced a new originality threshold which databases falling within this statutory definition must meet in order to attract copyright Ė these databases must "by reason of the selection or arrangement of [their contents,] constitute the authorís own intellectual creation".8 These changes apply to all databases created on or after 27 March 1997. Databases created before that date, even if they fall within the statutory definition, will be subject to the traditional originality threshold.

The new originality test introduced by the Database Directive is significant for two reasons: first, it focuses on the intellectual creation invested in the selection and arrangement of the database contents Ė any skill and labour invested in gathering together the database contents are irrelevant; second, this originality threshold is almost certainly higher than the traditional originality test which applies to other literary works, in that it appears to require some subjective and qualitative contribution from the author. Although there is no further guidance in the Database Directive as to what is required under this test, the travaux preparatoires to the Database Directive support the interpretation that it is a higher test than the traditional originality test under UK law.9 The Commission has also more recently confirmed its view that the intellectual creation threshold is higher than the traditional originality threshold which applied in the UK and other common law countries.10 This interpretation, if correct, will have significant implications for many databases including, in particular, computer-generated databases. If those databases have been created in circumstances where there has been no human intervention, it seems unlikely that they will attract copyright protection under the new originality threshold.

If a collection of data (or other materials) meets the statutory definition, but does not meet the new originality threshold, it will not attract copyright protection, but it may still attract database right. This is significant: database right lasts for 15 years from the end of the calendar year in which the making of the database was completed; copyright protection lasts for 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author of the database died. (In this respect, it is worth noting, however, that Laddie Jís judgement in William Hill11 at first instance on the extension of database right for dynamic databases is still good law in the UK).12

If, on the other hand, a collection of data does not meet the statutory definition, it may still attract copyright under UK law as a data compilation or table, provided it satisfies the traditional originality test.

3.2. Database Right

Database right will subsist in a database falling within the statutory definition if there has been "substantial" investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting the contents of the database.13 This investment can be qualitative or quantitative. The right is infringed if a person, without the ownerís consent, "extracts or re-utilises all or a substantial part of the contents" or carries out "repeated and systematic extraction/re-utilisation of insubstantial parts".14 "Extraction" involves transferring the contents to another medium; re-utilisation is making available to the public by any means.

The ECJ has delivered its first judgments on the scope of database right, and the interpretation of the requirement that, for database right to subsist there must have been substantial investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting the contents of the database.15 These judgments, and their implications, have been considered in detail in previous issues of this journal16 and a detailed analysis is outside the scope of this article.

For present purposes, it is sufficient to note that the ECJ has interpreted the above requirement to mean that the substantial investment required for database right to subsist must be applied to already existing materials: if there has been substantial investment only in the creation of the material which is contained in the database (and no substantial investment in its verification or presentation) then database right will not subsist.

These rulings have significant implications for producers of single-source databases, which create and present the data and information comprised in their databases, and for fast-moving databases where the act of creating the contents of the database is, in practice, inseparable from the act of creating the database itself: in either case, those databases are unlikely to attract database right.

4. Database Application Software

Although, in practical terms, these programs can be considered part of the electronic database, for legal purposes, neither will attract protection under the Database Directive: the Directive states that "computer programs used in the making operation of databases accessible by electronic means" are not protected.17

4.1. Copyright

These programs are, of course, capable of attracting copyright protection as literary works under UK law.18 In addition, a programís preparatory design materials will be capable of copyright protection, both as literary works in their own right, and as part of the computer programs to which they relate.19 (As discussed below, in light of recent UK case law in this area, this latter point may well assume an increasingly important role in situations where there has been copying of non-literal elements of a computer program.)

Finally, it is to be noted that computer programs which are made up of a series of sub-programs, routines and sub-routines have been held to be copyright protected as compilations under UK law.20

4.1.1. Database Application Software: Literal Copying

Where there has been copying of a programís code, the analysis under UK law is relatively straightforward: provided the program copied is "original", (applying UK lawís traditional originality threshold which, as we have already noted, is low), copyright will be infringed where there has been "substantial" copying (unless one of the statutory permitted exceptions can be relied on). Substantiality, in this context, is a qualitative rather than quantitative test. It is not to be judged against whether the program would work without the code in question, or by the amount of use the program makes of the code in question, but in light of the degree of skill and labour which went into the design and coding of the piece of code which has been copied.21 Where there has been "over borrowing" of the skill, labour and judgement which went into the work in question, a substantial part of that work will have been copied.22

4.1.2. Database Application Software: Non-Literal Copying

The legal analysis is less straightforward where there has been no copying of program code, and copying has taken place at a more abstract level, for example, where two programs behave or function in a similar way, or where the program outputs are substantially similar. "Non-literal" copying of this nature often includes copying of user commands and interfaces and other aspects of a programís "look and feel".

Non-literal copying can be particularly relevant in the context of database migrations. Typically, the migration process will involve the creation of an interim program into which data from the existing database is exported, before being migrated to the new database. Frequently, the interim program (and, in some cases, the new database) will reproduce at least some of the structure and architecture of the original. In some cases (particularly where the new database is designed specifically for the end-user), the end-user will want to migrate to a database that is functionally similar to the original.

It is settled law in the UK that non-literal elements of a computer program are capable of copyright protection. In John Richardson v Flanders,23 it was confirmed that the structure of a computer program was copyright-protectable. In Cantor Fitzgerald, Pumfrey J acknowledged that a programís "architecture" was capable of protection if a substantial part of the programmerís skill, labour and judgment has gone into it.

4.1.3. Non-literal Copying: Navitaire

Copying of non-literal elements of a computer program has most recently been considered by the UK courts in Navitaire.24 The case is of particular relevance to this article in that it involved alleged infringement of copyright in an electronic database. It provides a good illustration of the challenges in applying UK copyright law in cases where non-literal copying has been alleged.

4.1.3.1. Facts

Navitaire, Inc was the owner of OpenRes, a ticketless airline reservation system, which it licensed to customers in the airline industry, including easyJet. EasyJet (through a third party software developer) developed a similar system called eRes. Navitaire alleged that easyJet had infringed its copyright in OpenRes, both during the migration process, and in creating a final database which was similar in function and appearance to OpenRes. It was accepted that the defendants had no access to, and therefore did not copy, the source code in OpenRes. Instead, it was alleged that certain non-literal elements of OpenRes had been copied including the user interfaces (comprising the user command sets and the layout of certain of the GUI (graphical user interface) screens), and what Navitaire described as the systemís "business logic" (essentially, its functional structure). Each of these claims was the subject of a detailed analysis by the court.25

4.1.3.2. Individual Command Sets

The OpenRes database was interrogated by users, using various commands. These included what Navitaire described as "simple" commands (individual command names that had only one outcome), and "complex" commands (commands which had a "syntax" and which could, therefore, have more than one outcome depending on their combination).26 EasyJetís eRes database used very similar sets of commands.

Navitaire argued that (i) the individual and complex commands were each copyright works in their own right and (ii) the collection of commands as a whole attracted copyright as a compilation. The trial judge, Pumfrey J, rejected both arguments.

Relying on the courtís decision in Exxon,27 he held that individual command words and letters were too simple to possess the necessary qualities to be considered literary works. The complex commands, on the other hand, failed to attract copyright protection on the grounds that they were not written (in the sense that their syntax was not "stated" anywhere in the OpenRes source code) and, therefore, were not literary works.

While Pumfrey Jís conclusions in relation to the simple commands are understandable and uncontroversial, those relating to the complex commands are less so. As noted earlier in this article, it is settled law in the UK that non-literal elements of a computer program (such as structure and architecture) are capable of copyright protection. This is the case even where those non-literal elements are not "stated" in the programís code. In fact, Pumfrey J, in his judgment, recognised that this was not a particularly satisfactory way to resolve the issue, not least because it failed to address the situation where the commandsí syntax had been stated in the source code. In his view, even if the syntax was stated in the source code, the commands would not be copyright protected. This was because they were, in his view, a form of computer programming language and, as such, were not capable of copyright protection under the Software Directive.28

Recital 14 of the Software Directive states that "Öto the extent that logic, algorithms and programming languages comprise ideas and principles those ideas and principles are not protected under this Directive". Art 1(2) states that "ideas and principles which underlie any element of a computer program, including those which underlie its interfaces, are not protected by copyright under this Directive". It is to be noted, however, that neither Recital 14 nor Art 1(2) categorically excludes computer languages from copyright protection. This lack of certainty was acknowledged by Pumfrey J, who said that, ultimately, the position would need to be clarified by the ECJ.

Finally, in this respect, Navitaireís claim that the collection of commands as a whole attracted copyright as a compilation also failed. This was on the grounds that they there had been no overall design in their creation and that each command had been added in an ad-hoc manner over time.

The judgment in Navitaire would, therefore, on its face, appear to rule out copyright protection for a computer programís command sets. However, two aspects of the judgment leave some scope for future argument that command codes should attract copyright protection (at least in some circumstances). First, while the Software Directive appears to imply that computer programming languages are not copyright-protectable, as noted above, the position is not without doubt. Likewise, Pumfrey Jís finding that command sets are a form of computer language is also open to question. Indeed, Pumfrey J gave Navitaire leave to appeal on his legal findings on these points (among others). Unless and until the ECJ rules on this issue, there is still scope for argument that computer languages are capable of copyright protection where they are "expression" rather than "idea".

Second, and perhaps more importantly, Pumfrey Jís judgment suggests that, where command codes are compiled in a structured manner and are part of an overall methodical design, they may attract copyright protection as a compilation. Detailing the command sets and their overall design in the programís documentation is likely to assist any argument in this respect.

4.1.3.3. Layout and Display of User Interface Screens

Navitaireís claim for copyright infringement of the user interface screens was based on similarities in the look and feel of the programsí interfaces. The court distinguished between those screens which were purely character-based, and those which made up the graphical user interface. As noted above, the Software Directive precludes ideas underlying computer program interfaces from copyright protection.29 However, this applies only to computer programs as literary works. Therefore, the character-based screens, as literary works which amounted to ideas underlying the programís interfaces, were not copyright protected. The GUI screens, on the other hand, were artistic works: as such, the Software Directive did not apply and they were copyright protected. In copying elements of those GUI screens, the defendants had infringed copyright.

4.1.3.4. Business Logic

Navitaire also claimed that, because OpenRes and eRes behaved in a similar manner (in that they gave similar outputs, based upon similar sequences of inputs), the "business logic" or "functional structure" of OpenRes had been copied (in much the same way as the plot of a book can be copied without any copying of the words).

This argument also failed. Pumfrey J considered that the "business function" of a computer program was an idea too abstract and general to attract copyright. Although the business function of the program was envisaged by the authors as the end result of the program, that did not constitute sufficient skill and labour to pass the originality threshold required under UK law. This conclusion was, in the courtís view, consistent with the policy of the Software Directive to exclude computer languages and the ideas underlying a programís interfaces from protection: "it should not be possible to circumvent those exclusions by seeking to identify some overall function or functions that it is the sole purpose of the interface to invoke". To allow the business function of a program to attract copyright protection as a literary work was "an unjustifiable extension of copyright protection".

Pumfrey Jís decision in Navitaire has subsequently been confirmed in Nova Productions,30 a case which also involved allegations of infringement of non-literal elements of a computer program. Again, the trail judge, rejected claims that the "look and feel" of the program had been infringed, on the grounds that the elements alleged to infringe were at such a level of abstraction as to be general ideas, and thus were not capable of copyright protection by virtue of Art 1(2) of the Software Directive.

The message from the decisions in Navitaire and Nova Productions is clear. Where there has been copying of nothing more than a programís outputs and/or elements of the functional structure of a computer program, it will be very difficult for program owners to successfully claim copyright infringement. It should be noted, however, that in both these cases, the claimants were unable to show that the functional structure of their programs had been documented in the preparatory design materials. Although, the claimant in Nova Productions raised this as an argument, on the facts it failed. The trial judge in that case expressly declined to comment on whether Nova Productionsí copyright infringement claim would have succeeded had the relevant elements of the programís functional structure been documented in the preparatory design materials. These judgments would, therefore, appear to leave open the possibility of a successful copyright infringement claim where the claimant can show that the functional elements which have been copied have been embodied in sufficient detail in the programís preparatory design materials.

5. Database Architecture

The architecture of a database comprises its structure and schema (the creation scripts which defines the tables and fields within the database and the relationship between those fields and tables).

The structure of a database is capable of copyright protection by virtue of the Database Directive: Recital 14 states that the copyright protection afforded to a database should extend to the structure of the database. Although Section 3A of the CDPA does not contain language to that effect, the UK courts will interpret Section 3A in a manner consistent with the Directive.

Again, this is an issue of particular relevance in the context of database migrations, where it is often necessary (or at least desirable) to reproduce the structure of the original database, either in the interim programs or the new database itself.

If the database structure is reproduced in this way, then copyright is likely to be infringed unless a permitted exception applies. Under UK law, the most likely possible permitted exception is that set out in Section 50D of the CDPA. Under this section, it is not an infringement of database copyright for a lawful user to do "anything necessary" to use access and use the contents of the database. Contract terms which seek to prevent this are void.

The scope and effect of Section 50D was considered by the court in Navitaire. Navitaire alleged that the defendants had infringed its copyright in the OpenRes database structure through its reproduction in eRes (and the interim databases). Pumfrey J considered that "necessary" in the context of Section 50D should be construed "so as to exclude the merely desirable or convenient, but not so as to require the merely absurd".

To facilitate the migration process, easyJet had provided Bulletproof with screen shots of OpenRes, a tape of the complete OpenRes database, and hyperlink access to the OpenRes database.

Pumfrey J held that the use of the screen shots was permitted by Section 50D, since this was necessary to find out what data was being held. However, in providing Bulletproof with a copy of the OpenRes database, copyright in that database had been infringed. Section 50D could not be relied upon in these circumstances, since the data migration could have been achieved through the use of alternative techniques (a neutral file format for example)31 which did not involve copying the OpenRes database. Providing Bulletproof with hyperlink access to OpenRes was also an infringement since this allowed Bulletproof to access the database fields even when there was no access to data.

Thus, following the judgment in Navitaire, it would appear that, where migration can be achieved through the use of a neutral file format technique, then even though it is likely to be more time-consuming and less convenient than other techniques, directly accessing and copying the database will not be exempted by Section 50D.

6. Rights in Data

Under UK law, there are no property rights in "raw" data or information per se. Information and data can, however, be protected by rights of confidence and by contract.

6.1. Rights of Confidence

A successful claim for breach of confidence, under UK law, typically requires three components: (i) the information in question must be "confidential"; (ii) it must have been imparted in circumstances in which an obligation of confidence arises; and (iii) there must have been a breach of that confidence by the person receiving the information to the detriment of the disclosing party.

Two important points are to be noted in respect of these requirements. First, "confidential", in this sense means that the information in question must not be "publicly accessible". The fact that the underlying information contained in an electronic database is in the public domain, will not, in itself, preclude the law of confidence from applying: it is well established, under UK law, in a line of cases starting with Albert (Prince) v. Strange,32 that, where information in its aggregated form is not publicly available, that information (in its aggregated form) is capable of protection through the law of confidence, even though the underlying information may itself be in the public domain.

Second, in the context of many databases (particularly those that are publicly accessible) it will not be possible to imply a special relationship which would give rise to an obligation of confidence. For database producers to rely on the law of confidence in respect of any unauthorised use or disclosure of data comprised within a database, it will be necessary to ensure that anyone accessing that database is required to accept licence terms which contain appropriate confidentiality notices and restrictions on re-use and disclosure of the information and data contained within the database.

6.2. Contract Rights

As an extension of the last point, it is, of course, possible under UK law, to restrict the use and disclosure of information accessed via a database by contract.

It is settled law in the UK that a person is entitled, by agreement, to make a charge for access to, and use of, its information, whether or not that person has any intellectual property rights in that information. This has most recently been confirmed in Victor Chandler.33 The case involved the British Horse Racing Board and Victor Chandler, a bookmaker based in Gibraltar. Victor Chandler claimed that, as a result of the ECJís ruling in BHB v. William Hill,34 the data licence it had entered into with the British Horseracing Board for access to and use of pre-race data was void, and that it should not have to pay for access to and use of that data. The trial judge, Laddie J, dismissed Victor Chandlerís claim, holding that licence terms which restricted Victor Chandlerís use of the pre-race data and which entitled BHB to make a charge for Victor Chandlerís use of that data, were valid.

7. Conclusion

The ECJís and UK courtís recent judgments make it more difficult for database owners and producers to assert statutory intellectual property rights in databases and the application software used to manipulate those databases.

The UK courtsí recent judgments in Navitaire and Nova Productions underscores the difficulties that claimants will face in attempting to assert copyright in the functional structure and other "look and feel" elements of database application software. To enhance the prospects of asserting copyright in the functional structure of a computer program, program owners should ensure that those elements which they wish to protect are properly documented in the programís preparatory design materials.

The ECJís recent judgments have significantly curtailed the scope of the sui generis database right by distinguishing between resources used in the creation of the contents of a database and those used to obtain, verify and present that content in the database. Only the latter investment will be taken into account in determining whether a database attracts database right. This will be of particular importance for producers of single-source databases, who both create the data and establish the database and for fast-moving databases where the act of creating the data is inseparable from creation of the database.

As a result, rights of confidence and contract rights assume a more significant role in allowing database owners to control access to their databases. Database producers should ensure that all users of their databases are required to agree to legally binding contract or licence terms, governing the circumstances in which their databases can be accessed and used. Those terms should include express confidentiality notices and restrictions on re-use and disclosure of the information and data contained within the database.

Footnotes

1 The total turnover of the database and directory publishing industries in 2000 amounted to Ä8.2 billion. The software and database industries and print media industries contributed in excess of 1% to the EU GDP (Source: Commissionís Working Paper, First evaluation of the Database Directive n 4 below).

2 Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, OJ L 77/1996 20.

3 The European Commission (in line with its obligations under Article 16 of the Directive) published, in December of last year, an evaluation on the extent to which the policy objectives of the Database Directive has been achieved. A copy of the evaluation is available at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/databases/evaluation_report_en.pdf.

4 Case C-46/02, Fixtures Marketing Ltd v. Oy Veikkaus Ab; Case C-203/02, The British Horseracing Board and Others v. The William Hill Organisation Ltd; Case C-338/02, Fixtures Marketing Limited v. Svenska Spel Ab; Case C-444/02 Fixtures Marketing Ltd v. Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosfairou AE (OPAP).

5 Navitaire Inc v. easyJet Airline Company & Bulletproof Technologies, Inc [2004] EWHC 1725 (Ch).

6 S 3(1)(a) Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA).

7 CDPA 1988, s3A(1), implementing Article 1(2) of the Database Directive.

8 Article 3(1) and Reg 6 of the UK Regulations.

9 The Economic and Social Committee, in its opinion on the Commissionís initial proposal, expressed the view that "sweat of the brow" databases were not an authorís intellectual creation and therefore were not protected by copyright.

10 DG Working Paper: First evaluation of the Database Directive.

111 The British Horse Racing Board v. William Hill Organisation [2001] RPC 31.

12 Laddie J held that database right is renewed each time a dynamic database is updated and that the renewed protection extended to the database as a whole.

13 Reg 13(1) of the UK Regulations, implementing Art 7(1) of the Database Directive.

14 Reg 16, implementing Art 7(5) of the Database Directive.

15 Supra n 5.

16 See, for example, ĎDatabase right and the ECJ judgment in BHB v. William Hill: Dark horse or non-starter?í Kemp, Meredith, Gibbons, [2005] 21 CLSR 108 Ė 118.

17 Database Directive, Art 1(3).

18 CDPA, S3(1)(b).

19 Article 1 and Recital 7 of the Software Directive state that "preparatory design material" relating to a computer program will be considered part of that computer program provided that "a computer program can result from it at a later stage".

20 Ibcos v. Barclays Mercantile Finance [1994] FSR 275.

21 Cantor Fitzgerald International v. Tradition (UK) Limited (15 April 1999) [2000] RPC 95

22 Supra n20.

23 [1993] FSR 497.

24 Navitaire Inc v. easyJet Airline Company & Bulletproof Technologies, Inc [2004] EWHC 1725 (Ch)

25 Navitaire also claimed that its database copyright had been infringed in two respects: first, in migrating the data contained in OpenRes, easyJet had made interim copies of the existing OpenRes databases, thereby infringing copyright and database right in these databases; and, second, copyright in the OpenRes database structure and schema had been infringed through their reproduction in eRes. These aspects of the case are considered later in this article.

26 For example, if a user typed "A" followed by a date and a city pair, available flights between those cities on that date would be displayed on screen (so, typing the command "A13JUNLTNAMS" would display all flights between Luton and Amsterdam airport on 13 June).

27 Exxon Corp v. Exxon Insurance Consultants International [1982] RPC 69.

28 Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs.

29 Art 1(2).

30 Nova Productions Ltd v. Mazooma Games Ltd and Others [2006] EWHC 24 (Ch).

31 An example of neutral file format is the comma delimited format. This involves the extraction of data into a file format of unnamed records separated by commas. The data is then loaded into the target database using a program designed to expect the data in the prescribed order and separated by the prescribed delimiters.

32 [1849] EWHC Ch J20 (08 February 1849).

33 BHB Enterprises v. Victor Chandler (International) Limited [2005] EWHC 1074 (Ch).

34 Supra n 5.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think youíve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.comís content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltdís services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) Ė meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with ďno disclosureĒ in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a userís hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friendís name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our usersí information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a userís personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that userís personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the ďYour ProfileĒ page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.