The claimant had issued proceedings and the defendant filed an acknowledgement, and then argued that the court had no jurisdiction. The claimant appealed against an order declining jurisdiction. Held: Where a party filed an acknowledgement, that was an acceptance of the court’s jurisdiction unless at the same time it was made clear that the acknowledgement … Continue reading Hoddinott and others v Persimmon Homes (Wessex) Ltd: CA 21 Nov 2007
The claimant owned the copyright in several successful computer games. He had granted licenses for the use of the software, which licences were assigned to the defendants. Disputes arose as to the calculation of royalty payments, and the claimant . .
The claimant said that the software supplied to it was not fit for purpose. The defendant said that the company had relied on its own inspections of what was a standard package, and had not made known its desire to use it in a specific context. The claimant had originally pleaded reliance on the defendant’s … Continue reading Kingsway Hall Hotel Ltd v Red Sky IT (Hounslow) Ltd: TCC 6 May 2010
The claimants, airline pilots, and the company disputed the application of the 1998 Regulations to their employment. They sought pay for their annual leave made up of three elements: a proportionate part of the fixed annual sum paid for their services, a supplementary payment which varied according to the time spent flying, and thirdly an … Continue reading British Airways Plc v Williams and Others: SC 17 Oct 2012
The defendant had settled the claim for damages for personal injury. His payment in had been rejected, but the claimant won a smaller sum at trial. He now argued that the claimant should not receive the full 100% costs uplift provided.
Held: . .
Applications for trade marks on behalf of the claimant had been rejected. Acquired distinctiveness was a significant issue, and the question of whether the appeal was a review or a rehearing was significant. In this appeal, the parties had given . .
The claimant sued for libel in respect of the publication in this jurisdiction of allegations of fabricating evidence, conspiracy to murder, and the bribery and corruption of the prosecutor and judges in criminal proceedings. The defendant now . .
Application for partial or total disallowance of the Claimants’ costs pursuant to rule 44.11(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR); the Defendants allege ‘gross misconduct before and during the proceedings’. . .
The court considered the effect of negotiations on costs claims: ‘Changes were made to the Rules of Court. Some of these changes, and in particular the provisions of Sections II to V of CPR45, were introduced following ‘industry wide’ discussions . .