The plaintiff had accepted a payment in which was more advantageous than its own offer of settlement. It now sought costs on an indemnity rather than a standard basis. They argued that under the rule they were entitled to costs on an indemnity basis up to date of acceptance.
Held: The rules said that once a payment in was accepted the court retained no discretion. Rule 36.21 could only be applied where the court had itself been involved in deciding the damages.
Judges:
Jacob J
Citations:
Times 06-Nov-2002, Gazette 01-Nov-2002
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Dyson Appliances Ltd v Hoover Ltd PatC 3-Oct-2000
The plaintiff alleged infringement of its European Patent in a vacuum cleaning appliance. The defendants sought its revocation on the statutory grounds of lack of novelty, obviousness and insufficiency, and for threats. . .
See Also – Dyson Appliances Ltd v Hoover Ltd PatC 5-Apr-2001
The claimant had obtained injunctive relief against the defendant for patent infringement. Only twelve months of the patent remained, and the claimants applied for an extension of the injunction twelve months beyond the patent expiry, and for other . .
See Also – Dyson Appliances Limited v Hoover Limited CA 4-Oct-2001
Hoover appealed a finding that Dyson’s patent was valid and infringed. They asserted the patent was not novel in the light of a US patent, and even so was obvious. One test was whether an application of the claimed patent would inevitably infringe . .
Cited by:
See Also – Dyson Appliances Limited v Hoover Limited (No 4) PatC 18-Feb-2003
The court refused to make an order for a payment of interim costs when the substantive claim for costs remained to be heard. The claimant had accepted a payment in entitling it to its costs, but now sought an interim award before the full costs . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Costs
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.178033
