Costa v Dissociadid Ltd & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 1475 (18 November 2025)

Costa v Dissociadid Ltd & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 1475 (18 November 2025)

The judge was entitled to decide the applications on the papers and Mr Costa had opportunity to make submissions; however, the judge erred in not considering the Part 18/specific disclosure application and in awarding costs for unreasonable conduct without proper apportionment or consideration of unresolved aspects. The appeal is allowed in part, setting aside the costs order and remitting unresolved applications for further consideration.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 1475
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Sergio Mendes Costa; Respondent/defendant: Dissociadid Ltd; Respondent/defendant: Ms Chloe Wilkinson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Case Management Orders
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Case Management, Costs, Disclosure, Damages Assessment, Abuse of Process
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Copyright Infringement Case Management Costs Disclosure Damages Assessment Abuse of Process

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

Parties

Sergio Mendes Costa

Appellant/claimant

Dissociadid Ltd

Respondent/defendant

Ms Chloe Wilkinson

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Case Management Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in deciding the application without a hearing or submissions
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in declining to exercise jurisdiction under CPR 23.8(3)
  3. 3 Whether damages claimed exceeded scope of prior order

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to decide the applications on the papers and Mr Costa had opportunity to make submissions; however, the judge erred in not considering the Part 18/specific disclosure application and in awarding costs for unreasonable conduct without proper apportionment or consideration of unresolved aspects. The appeal is allowed in part, setting aside the costs order and remitting unresolved applications for further consideration.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; dismissed in part

Orders

  • Costs order in 15 July Order set aside
  • Application for further information and specific disclosure to be addressed within quantum proceedings