Assessment Cover Sheet

Assessment Title Assessment 3 – Group Report & Presentation

Learning Outcomes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Programme Title: Bachelor Of Business

Course No.: BSB 6003

Course Title: Business Law

Student Name: Sarah Jawad, Maryam Alkunaizi, Dalya Baqi

Student ID: 201400800, 201400869, 201500006

Tutor: Teresa Chacko

Due Date: 22nd May 2016 Date submitted: 22nd May 2016

By submitting this assessment for marking, either electronically or as hard copy, I confirm the
following:
 This assignment is my own work
 Any information used has been properly referenced.
 I understand that a copy of my work may be used for moderation.
 I have kept a copy of this assignment

Do not write below this line. For Polytechnic use only.

Assessor: Date of Marking:

Grade/Mark:

Comments:

1|Page
 Table of Contents
Task 2b ............................................................................................................................. 3
Task 3c ............................................................................................................................. 4
Task 3d ............................................................................................................................. 6
Task 4e ............................................................................................................................. 8
Appendix ........................................................................................................................ 12
1.1 Appendix1 .................................................................................................................. 12
1.2 Appendix 2 ................................................................................................................. 12
1.3 Appendix 3 ................................................................................................................. 13
1.4 Appendix 4 ................................................................................................................. 13
1.5 Appendix 5 ................................................................................................................. 13
1.6 Appendix 6 ................................................................................................................. 13
1.7 Appendix 7 ................................................................................................................. 14
References...................................................................................................................... 15

2|Page
Task 2b

ISSUE: Which structure should be chosen?

RULES: Article 2(a), a commercial company that is located in the Kingdom of Bahrain should
be one either a general partnership company, limited partnership company, association in
participation, Joint Stock Company, limited partnership by shares, limited liability company,
single person company or a holding company.
Article 2(b) states that if any company does not take any of these forms, it will be considered
as void or null.
Article 25, a General Partnership Company is a company that consists of two or more
persons such a certain name and they are both mutually liable to the extent of all their
property for the company’s obligations.
Article 50 states that a Limited Partnership Company refers to a company which consist of
one or more persons that are both mutually liable to the extent of all their property for the
company’s obligations. The sleeping partners are partners that are not involved in the
management and are liable for the company’s obligations only to the extent of their share in
the capital. (The Commercial Companies Law, 2001)

APPLICATION:
In this case, Texistyle is a General Partnership Company in which both Mr and Mrs Salman
and their three children are partners in, and each member gets profit in the company.
However, they all have unlimited liability which means that in the case of liquidation, they
lose all their assets and profit in the company and also all their personal assets. One other
company structure that would be more appropriate for Texistyle would be a Limited Liability
Partnership as it is similar to a general partnership and so there would not be much change
for them in the company. Another advantage is that since they heard about the
discontinuance of the Trade Preference Level with the Free Trade Agreement US-Bahrain,
export to the United States might become more risky and as Mr and Mrs Salman do not have
much involvement in the company already, they can become sleeping partners which means
that they will not take part in the management but will have profits and so will only be liable
to the extent of their share in the capital. Also, as they are both getting older, it is safer for
them to be sleeping partners in order for them not to lose their personal assets in the case
of liquidation. However, their three children who are not sleeping partners will have
unlimited liability which means that both their assets in the company and their personal
assets will be at risk.

CONCLUSION
In my opinion, the company structure, which is more appropriate for Texistyle is a Limited
Liability Partnership as the company would run in a similar way as their current structure and
Mr and Mrs Salman would be safe in the case of liquidation.

3|Page
 Task 3c

ISSUE: Is there an intellectual property infringement committed in relation to the fibres by

Texistyle?

RULE: Article 1 (2004); in order to receive a patent, the invention must be new, involves an
inventive step and is industrially applicable. Whether it is imported or locally produced.
Article 11.b.1 (2004); says that the patentee (owner of the patent) has the right to forbid
others from using the manufacturing method if the patent's subject is a method for
manufacturing a product.
The case of Kelly and Another v GE Healthcare (2009) (see appendix1)

APPLICATION: intellectual property stands for any creation of mankind; it can be inventions,
literary works, designs, symbols or names and images used in commerce. IP is divided into
three sections; Copyright, Patents and Trademarks. In this scenario, we are concerned with
patents. And, we are looking at inventions; which are either a device or process; like this
case concerns processes. Sara's research team thought that they discovered a new process
of making fabrics that would be all locally produced in Bahrain. However, a Caribbean
company claims that they have been using this process since 1987 and they already have a
patent on it.
According to article 1, in order to establish a patent right the process should be new, is an
inventive step and industrially applicable. Therefore, we need to ask three questions.
1. Is the process new?
No, it is not. New stands for confidentiality; the information regarding the process
must be secretive. However, in this case, this process is not new for the information
has been used by a Caribbean Company since 1987.
2. Is it an inventive step?
Yes it is. Inventive step means that the process must be original, and that the invention
should cause a revelation in the destined industry. In this scenario, Sara's team
discovered a composition which is completely synthetic but has all the specifications
of natural yarn. Consequently, this is a worldwide breakthrough for textile industry.
The case of Kelly and Another v GE Healthcare (2009) (see appendix1) explains how
inventions have to be ingenious.
3. Is it industrially applicable?
Yes it is. The whole process relies on local raw material. The conversion from fibers
to yarn to fabric all occurs here in Bahrain. Also, the main components of the process
are palm leaves and oils, and they are widely available in Bahrain. So, the likelihood
of the capability of production is very high
In the end, Texistyle cannot put a patent on the process for it is not new; a Caribbean
Company has been using it since 1987. However, if Texistyle do want to move ahead
and use the process, there are three possibilities to that.
Firstly, assuming that they patented it the same year they started using the process “1987”.
So, the patent wouldn’t be active; since it would be pass 20 years with 9 extra years. Hence,
they would not be committing an infringement if they decided to use it. Secondly, assuming
that the patent is still on with minimum period left (for example: six months) In this case, I
would advise Texistyle to wait the remaining period instead of paying the fees to use the
process. Finally, assuming that the patent still has a long remaining period, and in that case, I
would recommend the company to pay the fees; if they want to use the process, as well as
4|Page
making sure with the Caribbean company that the process is really the same. Also, Texistyle
need to keep in mind that according to article 11.b.1 the patentee has the right to forbid
others from manufacturing a product if the patented subject is used within production. So,
they need to keep in mind that the Caribbean Company has the authority to disallow them
from manufacturing unless they agree with it.

CONCLUSION: In the end, Texistyle cannot put a patent on the process; as it is no longer
new. And as for my recommendation to if infringement was committed, it depends on when
the patent was established, also, whether the process of Texistyle is actually the same as the
Caribbean company. Therefore, we need to acquire more information that we can get
through the Caribbean Company's patent report.
.

5|Page
 Task 3d

ISSUE:
What is Trademark?
How it operates in Bahrain?
Is the logo of Texistyle applicable?

RULES: Article 2 states that trademarks are defined as any symbol that is purposely used for
distinguishing the goods or services of a firm.
Article 3(a) states that a trademark has to be significantly distinctive in order for the public
to clearly identify the product as well as eliminating any confusion with other trademarks.
Article 3(b) states the trademark has to be not against the interest of the public.
Article 3(c) continues by mentioning that some symbols cannot be used until the permission
of the registerer is provided, it includes flags of countries, any representation of the royal
family and the royal coasts of arms.
Article 3(K,L,M,N) states that the trademark must be different than any previously
registered trademarks.
Article 17 states that the registration term in Bahrain is 10 years from the date registered
and is renewable for more 10-years. In addition, any trademark that is not renewed will be
removed and canceled by the commercial registry.
Article 43.1 states that if counterfeit goods are discovered with the same trademark as the
registered good. The owner may ask to suspend the production of these goods.
Article 46.1 continues by mentioning that if the owner is injured because of the
infringement of his rights, he shall ask for payment for the damages.
Article 47 states that there are Punishment of imprisonment that can be inflict on any
person who counterfeits a registered trademark or knowingly sells the goods bearing a
counterfeit trademark.

APPLICATION: According to article 2, trademarks are defined as any symbol that is purposely
used for distinguishing the goods or services of a firm. A trademark may be verbal or non-
verbal. There are many forms of Trademarks, Word marks; which entails of one or more
words. Figurative marks/logos; which consist of a figure or a figure combined with a word.
Colours, However, if you want to apply a specific colour in the trademark; you must give a
short description while registration. Three-dimensional trademarks, this Trademark protect
the products actual shape or packaging. Sound trademarks, it is any sound or melody that is
recognized easily and unique, to protect a sound; it must be reproducible graphically,
Collective, guarantee and control trademarks, this type consists of any type of trademark; it
can be owned by any society and any member can use it. Guarantee or control Trademarks
can be used by authorities, companies... etc. In Bahrain as article 17 mentioned, the process
of the registration of the trademark is renewable every 10 years. But if the owner did not
renew it after the 10 years, he loses the power of using the trademark and it shall be
deemed not his afterwards. In addition, According to articles 43.1, 46.1, and article 47, if a
person copied a registered trademark, the owner of the registered trademark can suspended
the goods. Moreover, if he was injured because of the act, he has the right to ask for
damages. The penalties can be punishment of imprisonment as if the person knowingly sold
the goods bearing that they are a counterfeits trademark.

6|Page
In order to identify whether the logo of Texistyle is applicable or not we need to ask several
questions and take article 3 under consideration. Firstly, as article 3(a) mentions, the
trademark must be distinctive. So we need to ask whether the trademark of Texistyle is
distinctive or not? Yes, it is because there are no similar logos in the market and the public
will be able to identify this symbol for Texistyle because it is different, and noticeable.
Secondly, as article 3(b) mentions that the logo must be not against the public interest. Is
Texistyle's logo against the public interest? No, it is not because it apparently does not
display any improper manners that may affect the public in an offensive way. Thirdly,
According to article 3(K,L,M,N) that the trademark must be different than any previously
registered trademark. Is Texistyle’s trademark different than any previously registered
trademarks? Yes, since no other logos look similar as this symbol. Lastly article 3(c) continues
by mentioning that some symbols cannot be used until the permission of the registerer is
provided, it includes flags of countries, any representation of the royal family and the royal
coasts of arms. Did Texistyle get a permission to use the flag of Bahrain in their logo?
According to the facts provided, it seems that Texistyle did not get the permission to use the
flag, so the logo is not applicable since it has the flag of Bahrain.
Conclusion: In my opinion, we need further information to determine whether this logo is
applicable of not, since the facts are not complete. We need to know whether they have
requested approval to use the flag or not since it is the only obvious issue with the chosen
symbol.

7|Page
 Task 4e

ISSUE: can Mr. Khan make a financial claim against Texistyle regarding his injury?

RULE: Article 158, if you are at a fault which caused a damage to another person, you are
responsible for the injury and compensation.
The case of Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 (see appendix 2)
Article 172(a) an employer is responsible towards an injured person for the damage caused
by prohibited action of his employee when the act was committed by the employee in the
course, or as a result, of his employment.
(b) A relationship between employers and employees exists even when the employer did not
choose his employee, given that he has power of supervision and control over his employee.
The case of Stennett v Hancock 1939 (see appendix 3)
The case of La Tercera Case 2011 (see appendix 4)
The case of Latimer v AEC Ltd 1953 (see appendix 5)
The case of Bolton v Stone [1951] (see appendix 6)
The case of Barnett V Chelsea and Kensington Hospital 1986 (see appendix 7)

Article 173, A person who is responsible for an act of another person can claim for redness
against the other person, he can possibly make the other person responsible to pay the
compensation for the damages made.
Article 174, every person who owns a property for residential purposes or other purposes
shall be liable towards any injury occurring and is responsible to make compensation for any
damage caused by him as a result of thrown or fallen things, unless he can prove that the
damages was caused by a reason beyond his control without forgetting his right of having
the option of getting payments on behalf of the person whose fault caused the throwing or
fall of the thing.
Article 165, states that if a person can prove that the injury is a result of a cause beyond his
control (Force majeure) he shall be found not liable to pay compensation, unless there is a
provision to the contrary.
Article 166, states that if a person did a wrongful act that contributed with the fault of the
other party in causing the injury. The other party will not be liable to the full injury but to the
proportion of the effect of his wrongful act towards the injured person.

APPLICATION:
According to article 158, negligence is an act of carelessness that caused damages to another
person, the one who committed the wrong, is responsible for the injury and to pay
compensation.
According to Lord Atkin, tort of negligence can be proven by establishing three elements:
duty of care, breach and damages. The identification of these elements took place because
of the famous case of Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 (see appendix 2)
Firstly: Duty of care
In order to establish duty of care, Lord Atkin came up with the "Neighbour Principle". This
principle is achieved by asking three questions.
1. Is it reasonably foreseeable?
(Texistyle)

8|Page
 Yes, it is reasonably foreseeable for Texistyle to foresee the injury of a broken leg to
occur due to slipping on an oily residue.
(Lean on us)
Yes, it is also reasonably foreseeable for lean on us to foresee that by leaving oily
remains on a factory floor, an employee can slip and break a leg. Just like the case of
Stennett v Hancock 1939 (see appendix 3) explains how the foresee-ability of risk
should be visible.

2. Is there a legal proximity between them?

(Texistyle)
Yes, there is a relationship between the employer (Texistyle) and the employee (Mr.
Khan). As article 172b states, a relationship between an employer and employee
occurs when it is proven that the employee has control over the employee, and in this
case, Mr. Khan is a worker for Texistyle, hence he is an employee and proximity is
proven. The case "La Tercera Case 2011" (see appendix 4) explains proximity.

(Lean on us)
Yes, there is a contractual relationship between Lean on us and Texistyle, since
Texistyle asked the cleaning company (Lean on us) to clean the factory floor from the
oil. Therefore, they are not employees of Texistyle, but independent contractors.
3. Is it fair, just and reasonable?
(Texistyle and Lean on us)
Yes, it is fair, just and reasonable for both parties to owe a duty of care. As it is fair in
the public interest; any person in the position of Texistyle or Lean on us, would owe a
duty of care to the employees (Texistyle) and workers of the factory\neighbours (Lean
on us).
In the end, both parties have established duty of care since both answered all the
questions positively.
There are two types of liability, vicarious and occupiers. Vicarious liability stands for the
responsibility of one person for the tortious act committed by the other person. However,
under article 173, the employer can on a later date claim against the employer if he has
funds. Also, article 172 explains the relationship between the employer and the employee.
However, in this case, Texistyle does not owe a vicarious liability towards Lean on us, since
they are not employees but independent contractors.
The second type is occupier's liability, according to article 174, this is defined as any person
who possesses a property that is used as a resident or any other purpose. Moreover, in this
case, assuming that the factory is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Salman, they are liable for the
injuries that occur there, since they are able to allow or prevent people from entering the
workplace. However, article 174 states that unless the owners can prove that the action
could not be prevented; caused by an act of God, third party... etc, in this case, there was
unusual heavy rainfall in the area, which caused the flood and eventually the water seeped
through the roofs, into the vats. The water then mixed with the oil and palm leaves mixture
and reached the floor. Eventually the oily residue remained. That, in the end, caused Mr.
Khan's injury.
Conclusion: Both parties Lean on us and Texistyle are found liable of duty of care which
makes sense since both of them have a direct relationship with Mr. Khan.
Breach:
Once duty of care is established, we need to prove breach. Breach is defined as breaking or
failing to meet the requirements of a contract law.

9|Page
In order to prove breach, the reasonable man concept is used to answer these four
questions.
1. How likely is the occurrence of the injury?

(Texistyle) it is very likely for the injury of a broken leg to happen in the course of action in
the factory; because a slip on oily floor is quite likely to happen. However, the injury
occurred because of heavy rainfall, and the likelihood of heavy rainfall to happen in Bahrain
is relatively low. So, Texistyle did all that is possible to prevent any injuries from occurring
since it is not expected that heavy flooding (force majeure, article 165) would take place
here in Bahrain, the case of Bolton v Stone 1951 (see appendix 6) explains the likelihood
occurrence of such events.
(Lean on us) The injury of a broken leg has a relatively high chance of occurring by slipping
on oily flooring. So, it has a reasonable probability that falling on the back and breaking a leg
would happen.
2. How serious is the injury?

(Texistyle) (Lean on us) the injury of a broken leg is quite serious, as Mr. Khan can no longer
participate in the workplace and do the required work for several weeks.
3. Is the cost of taking precautions relatively high with a low risk?

(Texistyle) Texistyle did all the suitable precautions within the given time; they could not
afford to stop production for more than a day so, they hired a cleaning company "Lean on
us" to do the cleaning within the time bound. However, the risk of an injury due to the oily
residue is quite high; since it is a very likely. A very similar case is Latimer v AEC Ltd 1953 (see
appendix 5) where in the end, the House of Lords stated that they are not liable.
(Lean on us) The cleaning company, with the given time; have done what they thought what
is possible to clean away the oil and prevent injuries as much as possible. They used sawdust
and then washed all the affected floors with fairy liquid. However, we are not certain that
Lean on us, did everything they could have done in order to prevent injuries. Therefore, we
need the international cleaning protocol in order to ensure that they have done what is
possible.
4. Is there an emergency of life and death to the public at large?

(Texistyle) yes, there is a situation of life and death; considering the public to be every
employee/person that has access to the factory floor, and leaving the oily residue there.
There is a very high chance of a person to slip and get seriously harmed, since factories are
very dangerous areas and a slip on the floor can cause a serious harm depending on the
landing of the person.
(Lean on us) Yes, there is a direct connection between the cleaning company's method of
cleaning and the injury that occurred. The employees all have the same equal risk of getting
majorly injured by slipping on the wet floor. However, the likelihood of the injury to be a
matter of life and death; depends on how the person falls and where.
Conclusion: after answering the four questions, we can reach the conclusion that Texistyle
did not commit a breach of that duty because the likelihood of the risk of a flood to occur in
Bahrain is rare. Therefore, no reasonable factory owner would pay for all the extra expense
in order to prevent the chances of a rare risk (force majeure) to occur. However, Lean on us
Company is found in breach of the duty of care, for the discussed answers above.

10 | P a g e
Damages:
The third element to prove tort of negligence is damages. After eliminating Texistyle for not
meeting the requirements of breach; we will be considering Lean on us for damages. In
order to establish whether there is a relationship between the breach of duty and damages,
we need to ask two questions.
1. Is there a causal relationship between the breach and the damage?
Yes, there is a direct relationship between them. Since, Mr. Khan's slip was directly
caused by Lean on us. For, they did not clean the floor from all the excess oil, and that
oil residue caused him to fall on his back and break a leg. A case that identifies the
concept of causal relationships is Barnett V Chelsea and Kensington Hospital 1986
(see appendix 7)

2. Was the damage foreseeable?

Yes, the foresee-ability of the injury of a broken leg is very common, and therefore, it
should be foreseen by Lean on us that an injury could occur if the floor is not cleaned
properly. Moreover, both parties should have predicted that an injury like this would
occur.
Conclusion: In the end, Lean on us are found liable of damages, for reasons mentioned
above and also both other elements. Therefore, Mr. Khan should be asking for
compensation from Lean on us and not Texistyle.

Defences
According to article 166, contributory negligence will be taken under examination for
our case. To identify contributory negligence, we need to ask:

1. Did Mr. Khan wear the suitable workplace gear for example; safety boots,
helmets.. Etc?
And in order to find out, we need to request the full accident and hospital reports.

Another possible defence is suitable under article 165 (force majeure) according to the
facts, there was a case of heavy rainfall that caused the flooding and therefore the
water seeping to the vats and mixing with the oil. So, under article 165 and the case of
Bolton v Stone [1951] (see appendix 6) we can prove that the likelihood of a flood is
very rare; hence the company would take precautions against this act of God.

Recommendations
In the end, we recommend the continuance of the investigation, and that we should get
all the required reports in order to be certain of the final recommendation. Also, we
advise Mr. Khan to make a financial claim against Lean on us.
Moreover, a future action for Texistyle:
If an accident like this happens again, we advise Texistyle to give out notices (memos)
to all workers to ensure their safety, since Mr. Khan was unfamiliar with the oily
residue on the factory floor, which caused his injury.

11 | P a g e
 Appendix

1.1 Appendix1
The case of Kelly and Another v GE Healthcare (2009)
Duncan Kelly and Ray Chiu, employees of GE Healthcare, were the co-inventors of highly
successful cardiac imaging agent which was patented by their employer. Marketed as
Myoview, product sales are estimated at £1.3 million, which represents a hefty proportion of
GE Healthcare’s profits.
Held:
Mr Justice Floyd held that the invention was an ‘outstanding benefit’ to GE Healthcare,
particularly as it had protected the firm against generic competition and enabled it to make
highly profitable deals. Holding that ‘the benefits went far beyond anything which one could
normally expect to arise from the sort of work the employees were doing’, Mr Justice Floyd
awarded Dr Kelly and Dr Chiu £1 million and £ 500,000 respectively, based on the value of
the patent which he estimated to be £ 50 million.

1.2 Appendix 2
Donoghue v Stevenson 1932
Facts: On the 26 August, 1928 john and a friend were at a café in Glasgow (Scotland).
Donoghue's companion ordered and paid for her drink. The cafe purchased the product from
a distributor that purchased it from Stevenson. The ginger beer came in a Dark bottle, and
the contents were not visible from the outside. Donoghue drank some of the contents and
her friend lifted the bottle to pour the remainder of the ginger beer into the tumbler. The
remains of a snail in a state of decomposition dropped out of the bottle into the tumbler.
Donoghue later complained of stomach pain and her doctor diagnosed her as having
gastroenteritis and being in a state of severe shock. Donoghue sued Stevenson, the
manufacturer of the drink, for negligence. She was unsuccessful at trial and appealed the
decision to the House of lords. Finally, her claim was successful.
Issue: Does the defendant owe a duty of care to the plaintiff being as there is no contract?
Decision: Appeal allowed
Reasons: The majority stated that the manufacturer does owe a duty of care to the end
consumer, for the purpose of their product is to be consumed, not to be sold to a
distributor.
Winterbottom v Wright does not apply in this case, for that case was about breach of
contract and this one was not
The absence of a contract between two parties does not mean that a duty is not owed
Overall, the court found that in cases like this where the manufacturers are manufacturing
goods for the eventual consumption of consumers, they do have a duty to take reasonable
care to ensure that their products are safe for consumption.
You cannot knowingly foresee harming your neighbor. Neighbors are persons who are
reasonably foreseeable as being affected by your actions or omissions. A duty of care is not
owed to the world at large; it is owed to your neighbors.

12 | P a g e
1.3 Appendix 3
Stennett v Hancock 1939
Facts: The claimant, a pedestrian, suffered a leg injury when he was hit by part of a wheel
which came off a passing lorry.
Held: The garage was found liable as it was reasonable to know that if the lorry (truck) wheel
was not fitted securely, an accident endangering any pedestrians near by could occur.
You cannot prove foresee-ability unless it is clear that there is a risk of injury being made by
the defendant.

1.4 Appendix 4
La Tercera Case 2011
Facts: The Chillean newspaper ‘La Tercera” was ordered in December 2011 to compensate
13 readers who suffered injuries when they followed a recipe it published. The recipe for
‘Churros’ (a sweet fried snack- like doughnuts) caused explosions that showered the cooks
with hot oil, causing burns.
Held: Chile’s Supreme Court found that the injury had been inevitable for anyone who
followed the printed recipe. The 13 readers were the very people for whom this recipe had
been published for and so they had a relationship with the newspaper as their potential
readers .
It ordered La Tercera to pay more than $163,000 to the victims (individual damages
ranged from $279 per person to $48,000).[8]
There must be some sort of proximity to prove duty of care

1.5 Appendix 5
Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953]
Facts: Following an exceptionally heavy storm, water entered a factory and covered
much of the floor; when it drained away (after mixing with the coolant used for the
machinery) it left a thin film of an oily liquid on the floor. DD put down sawdust to soak
up the liquid and to reduce the risk of slipping, but did not have enough to cover the
entire floor because of the exceptional nature of the storm. A workman P slipped on an
untreated part of the floor and his ankle was badly injured.

Held: The House of Lords stated , that DD had done all that a reasonable person would
do in the circumstances; they could not have eliminated the risk completely without
closing the factory. DD had not failed to exercise reasonable care and so were not liable
for the subsequent accident.

1.6 Appendix 6
Bolton v Stone [1951] 1 All ER 1078, HL
Miss Stone, standing on the pavement outside her house, was struck by a cricket ball hit
from an adjacent cricket ground. The ball must have travelled about 100 yards, clearing a 17-
foot fence, and such a thing had happened only about six times in thirty years. P's claim for
damages was rejected by the House of Lords: the risk was so slight and the expense of
reducing it so great that a reasonable cricket club would not have taken any further
precautions.
13 | P a g e
1.7 Appendix 7
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1968]
Facts: A man went to a hospital complaining of stomach pains and vomiting. The doctor
refused to examine him and sent him home untreated, and he died of arsenic poisoning five
hours later. His family sued the hospital but failed. The medical evidence was that he would
probably have died even if the proper treatment had been given promptly.
Held: Hospital not liable. So the hospital's negligence had not caused his death.

14 | P a g e
 References

Company Law Decree Law No.2. (2001).

Law No (1) on Patents and Utility Models. (2004).

Legislative Decree no.19 of the Bahrain Civil code. (2001).

Legislative Decree No.(11) With respect to Trademarks. (2006).

Bahrain Polytechnic Moodle. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://moodle.polytechnic.bh/moodle/

The Commercial Companies Law. (2001). Retrieved May 20, 2016, from moic:
http://www.moic.gov.bh/En/Regulation/Documents/0a81782cd8374c59b9b9262ed85c9b28commLaws.pdf

World Intellectual Property Organization”WIPO”. (n.d.). What is Intellectual Property? Retrieved December
18, 2016, from http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/

15 | P a g e