One Picture Ltd v Craig [2004] EWCA Civ 743 (26 May 2004)

One Picture Ltd v Craig [2004] EWCA Civ 743 (26 May 2004)

The arrangement between Mr Craig and Dr Smith/OPL was not a partnership but a commission-based relationship; Mr Craig was not entitled to intellectual property rights. The trial judge erred by failing to address the specific counterclaim for recovery of expenditure (paragraph 16(c)), which must be remitted for determination. Interest should run from the date of the counterclaim.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 743
Parties
Claimant/respondent: One Picture Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Timothy Craig
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; matter remitted to trial judge for determination of specific counterclaim; interest to be awarded from 14 October 2002; costs of appeal to Mr Craig.
Legal Topics
Copyright Ownership, Trade Mark Infringement, Passing Off, Partnership Disputes, Counterclaim Procedure, Quantum Meruit, Proprietary Estoppel, Interest on Judgment Debts
Intellectual Property Contract Civil Procedure Copyright Ownership Trade Mark Infringement Passing Off Partnership Disputes Counterclaim Procedure +3 more

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

Parties

One Picture Ltd

Claimant/respondent

Timothy Craig

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Craig was a partner in OPL and entitled to intellectual property rights
  2. 2 Whether Mr Craig was entitled to recovery of monies advanced, quantum meruit, and reimbursement of expenses
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge failed to address a specific counterclaim for recovery of expenditure

Ratio Decidendi

The arrangement between Mr Craig and Dr Smith/OPL was not a partnership but a commission-based relationship; Mr Craig was not entitled to intellectual property rights. The trial judge erred by failing to address the specific counterclaim for recovery of expenditure (paragraph 16(c)), which must be remitted for determination. Interest should run from the date of the counterclaim.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; matter remitted to trial judge for determination of specific counterclaim; interest to be awarded from 14 October 2002; costs of appeal to Mr Craig.

Orders

  • Remission to trial judge to determine claim in paragraph 16(c) of counterclaim (recovery of expenditure incurred by Mr Craig on behalf of the business)
  • Interest on sums recovered by Mr Craig on the counterclaim to run from 14 October 2002 at a rate to be fixed by the judge