NOV Downhole Eurasia Limited v. TLL Oilfield Consulting Ltd.

NOV Downhole Eurasia Limited v. TLL Oilfield Consulting Ltd.

The prothonotary correctly applied the pleading standard and case law: the facts pleaded were insufficient to show the individuals acted beyond their corporate roles or to establish infringement by Macek, and there was no basis to relieve the implied undertaking; the discretionary order was not a misuse of judicial discretion and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
2016 FC 685
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: NOV Downhole Eurasia Limited; Appellant/plaintiff: Dreco Energy Services ULC; Respondent/defendant: TLL Oilfield Consulting Ltd.; Respondent/defendant: Acura Machine Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Case Management Order / Decision on Appeal (dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs payable jointly and severally by the appellants to the respondents.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Implied Undertaking (production of Documents), Case Management Discretion, Joinder of Parties
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Corporate Law Civil Procedure Patent Infringement Piercing the Corporate Veil Implied Undertaking (production of Documents) Case Management Discretion Joinder of Parties

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NOV Downhole Eurasia Limited

Appellant/plaintiff

Dreco Energy Services ULC

Appellant/plaintiff

TLL Oilfield Consulting Ltd.

Respondent/defendant

Acura Machine Inc.

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Case Management Order / Decision on Appeal (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants should be permitted to amend their Statement of Claim to add three individuals as defendants
  2. 2 Whether the pleaded facts are sufficient to pierce the corporate veil and impose personal liability on corporate officers/directors
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs should be relieved of the implied undertaking so they may rely on documents produced to commence separate proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The prothonotary correctly applied the pleading standard and case law: the facts pleaded were insufficient to show the individuals acted beyond their corporate roles or to establish infringement by Macek, and there was no basis to relieve the implied undertaking; the discretionary order was not a misuse of judicial discretion and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs payable jointly and severally by the appellants to the respondents.

Orders

  • Appeal from the Order of Prothonotary Milczynski dated April 7, 2016 dismissed.
  • Costs in the cause payable jointly and severally by the appellants to the respondents.