Tangle Inc v One for Fun Ltd & Ors [2023] EWHC 217 (Ch) (10 February 2023)

Tangle Inc v One for Fun Ltd & Ors [2023] EWHC 217 (Ch) (10 February 2023)

Claims against Third and Fourth Defendants lack real prospects of success as pleadings do not allege involvement beyond director roles; claim against Second Defendant survives as pleadings and limited evidence suggest possible involvement beyond constitutional role, but only just.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 217 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Tangle Inc; First Defendant: One For Fun Limited; Second Defendant: David Jonathan Mordecai; Third Defendant: Mark Edward Colley; Fourth Defendant: Joanna Elizabeth Burton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Infringement / Application to Strike Out Claim Against Individual Defendants
Outcome
Claim against Third and Fourth Defendants struck out; claim against Second Defendant stayed to quantum hearing by consent.
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Joint Tortfeasance, Directors' Liability
Intellectual Property Company Law Copyright Infringement Joint Tortfeasance Directors' Liability

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 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tangle Inc

Claimant

One For Fun Limited

First Defendant

David Jonathan Mordecai

Second Defendant

Mark Edward Colley

Third Defendant

Joanna Elizabeth Burton

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property Infringement / Application to Strike Out Claim Against Individual Defendants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Second, Third, and Fourth Defendants can be liable as joint tortfeasors for copyright infringement by First Defendant
  2. 2 Whether pleadings and evidence establish involvement beyond constitutional role as directors

Ratio Decidendi

Claims against Third and Fourth Defendants lack real prospects of success as pleadings do not allege involvement beyond director roles; claim against Second Defendant survives as pleadings and limited evidence suggest possible involvement beyond constitutional role, but only just.

Court Disposition

Claim against Third and Fourth Defendants struck out; claim against Second Defendant stayed to quantum hearing by consent.

Orders

  • Claim against Third and Fourth Defendants struck out.
  • Claim against Second Defendant stayed to quantum hearing.