Lish v The Northern Block Ltd & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 497 (27 April 2026)

Lish v The Northern Block Ltd & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 497 (27 April 2026)

The Unpaid Royalties Claim was not an abuse of process because it was not pleaded or compromised in the Newcastle Claim, involved distinct issues and remedies, and the Defendants settled the Newcastle Claim knowing of its existence. The Infringements Claim was an abuse of process because it involved the same issues and remedies as the Newcastle Claim, could have been raised before settlement, and pursuing it after settlement undermined finality and unjustly harassed the Defendants.

Citation
[2026] EWCA Civ 497
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mariya Vasilyevna Lish; First Defendant/respondent: The Northern Block Limited; Second Defendant/respondent: Jonathan Hill
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in relation to the Unpaid Royalties Claim; appeal dismissed in relation to the Infringements Claim.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Copyright Infringement, Settlement Agreements, Variation of Contract, Strike Out Applications
Intellectual Property Contract Law Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Copyright Infringement Settlement Agreements Variation of Contract Strike Out Applications

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mariya Vasilyevna Lish

Claimant/appellant

The Northern Block Limited

First Defendant/respondent

Jonathan Hill

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Unpaid Royalties Claim is an abuse of process and should be struck out
  2. 2 Whether the Infringements Claim is an abuse of process and should be struck out

Ratio Decidendi

The Unpaid Royalties Claim was not an abuse of process because it was not pleaded or compromised in the Newcastle Claim, involved distinct issues and remedies, and the Defendants settled the Newcastle Claim knowing of its existence. The Infringements Claim was an abuse of process because it involved the same issues and remedies as the Newcastle Claim, could have been raised before settlement, and pursuing it after settlement undermined finality and unjustly harassed the Defendants.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in relation to the Unpaid Royalties Claim; appeal dismissed in relation to the Infringements Claim.

Orders

  • Unpaid Royalties Claim reinstated; not struck out.
  • Infringements Claim struck out as abuse of process.