By Gonzalo E. Mon
Earlier this year, Airbnb ran a contest in which one winner could “come stay in the former home of Julia Child.” The company LaPitchouneadvertised that entrants could imagine themselves “walking the halls of Julia Child’s former home,” and “channeling the culinary genius of Julia Child,” while “combing over the knick knacks in her kitchen exactly as she left them.” Although the contest may have been a hit with travelers and fans of the original celebrity chef, the chef’s estate was less enthused. This week, The Julia Child Foundation for Gastronomy and the Culinary Arts sued Airbnb and its publicity firm, arguing that contest violated Child’s right of publicity.
Since the recognition by our courts of the use of the constitutional principle of legality as a “catch-all” or “residual” ground for the review of conduct by public bodies, there appears to be an increasing trend amongst our courts to skirt around pronouncing on whether decisions under review constitute “administrative action” reviewable under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 ("PAJA") or not. While this is an understandably practical approach it unfortunately conduces to obscurity in relation to what constitutes administrative action as contemplated under PAJA and what does not.
Roering NO v Mahlangu (581/2015)  ZASCA 79 (30 May 2016)
Liquidators' entitlement to investigate the strength of a potential claim has been put in the spotlight in the recent case of Roering NO v Mahlangu per Wallis JA (Willis, Saldulker and Zondi JJA and Tsoka AJA concurring), where the Supreme Court of Appeal ("SCA") ruled that the legality of a summons issued by a commissioner pursuant to an enquiry in terms of sections 417 and 418 of the Companies Act 61 of 1973 ("the Act") would be determined by its purpose, and not its effect. The SCA found that a summons does not constitute an abuse of process merely because the issues canvassed in the examination may overlap with issues in pending or contemplated civil litigation.
To assist their clients and friends in other jurisdictions, Boodle Hatfield (London, England) recently prepared a detailed note "Top FAQs: Enforcement of an EU Member State Judgment in England and Wales". These procedures will of course remain relevant for some time. However, in light of the outcome of the EU referendum in the UK it is now necessary to consider what may replace the current regime.
By: Prof. Dr. H. Ercument Erdem
The Swiss Federal Supreme Court (“Court”) with its latest decision dated March 16, 2016, numbered 4A_628/2015 and published on March 29, 2016 (“Decision”) decided to stay the arbitration as a result of a failure to comply with a multi-tiered dispute resolution clause. This Decision is distinctive from other decisions rendered by the Court therefore it is a leading case and should be examined.