Al-Hasani v Nettler & Ors [2019] EWHC 640 (Ch) (21 March 2019)

Al-Hasani v Nettler & Ors [2019] EWHC 640 (Ch) (21 March 2019)

The claim for copyright infringement is time-barred under s.2 Limitation Act 1980; s.32 does not operate to postpone the limitation period as the Claimant failed to demonstrate he could not with reasonable diligence have discovered the alleged infringement earlier. The particulars of claim, though defective, were served. The applications for strike out and summary judgment are granted in favour of the Defendants. The Claimant's applications to amend and for summary judgment are refused. Costs orders are upheld.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 640 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Nadim Al-Hasani; First Defendant: Ronald Nettler; Second Defendant: The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out, Summary Judgment, Amendment, Costs)
Outcome
Claim struck out and dismissed as time-barred; summary judgment granted to Defendants; Claimant's applications refused.
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Limitation Period, Strike Out, Summary Judgment, Costs, Amendment of Pleadings
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Copyright Infringement Limitation Period Strike Out Summary Judgment Costs Amendment of Pleadings

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nadim Al-Hasani

Claimant

Ronald Nettler

First Defendant

The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out, Summary Judgment, Amendment, Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim for copyright infringement is time-barred under Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether s.32 Limitation Act 1980 applies to postpone limitation period
  3. 3 Whether particulars of claim were properly served

Ratio Decidendi

The claim for copyright infringement is time-barred under s.2 Limitation Act 1980; s.32 does not operate to postpone the limitation period as the Claimant failed to demonstrate he could not with reasonable diligence have discovered the alleged infringement earlier. The particulars of claim, though defective, were served. The applications for strike out and summary judgment are granted in favour of the Defendants. The Claimant's applications to amend and for summary judgment are refused. Costs orders are upheld.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out and dismissed as time-barred; summary judgment granted to Defendants; Claimant's applications refused.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed as time-barred under Limitation Act 1980.
  • Summary judgment granted to Defendants.