Price & Ors v Flitcraft Ltd & Ors [2023] EWHC 1746 (Pat) (13 July 2023)

Price & Ors v Flitcraft Ltd & Ors [2023] EWHC 1746 (Pat) (13 July 2023)

Claimants failed to demonstrate any real prospect of success on appeal against the costs orders, nor any risk of injustice justifying a stay of their liability. Defendants established a risk of injustice if required to pay costs to the insolvent Second Claimant, justifying a stay. Interim payments on account of costs were appropriate, calculated using the approved costs budget and appropriate deductions for uncertainty.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1746 (Pat)
Parties
First Claimant: Philip Price; Second Claimant: Supawall Limited; Third Claimant: Supahome by Maple Limited; First Defendant: Flitcraft Limited; Second Defendant: Flitcraft Timber Frame Limited; Third Defendant: Garry Flitcroft; Fourth Defendant: Thomas Flitcroft
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property (patents, Copyright, Passing Off) / Post Liability, Costs and Interim Payment Applications
Outcome
Claimants' applications for permission to appeal refused; stay granted for Defendants' liability to Second Claimant; stay refused for Claimants' liability to Defendants; interim payments ordered.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Permission to Appeal, Stay of Execution, Interim Payment, Patent Infringement, Copyright Infringement, Passing Off
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Costs Orders Permission to Appeal Stay of Execution Interim Payment Patent Infringement Copyright Infringement +1 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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Price

First Claimant

Supawall Limited

Second Claimant

Supahome by Maple Limited

Third Claimant

Flitcraft Limited

First Defendant

Flitcraft Timber Frame Limited

Second Defendant

Garry Flitcroft

Third Defendant

Thomas Flitcroft

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property (patents, Copyright, Passing Off) / Post Liability, Costs and Interim Payment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal costs orders should be granted
  2. 2 Whether stays of costs orders should be granted to either party
  3. 3 Whether interim payments on account of costs should be ordered and in what amounts

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants failed to demonstrate any real prospect of success on appeal against the costs orders, nor any risk of injustice justifying a stay of their liability. Defendants established a risk of injustice if required to pay costs to the insolvent Second Claimant, justifying a stay. Interim payments on account of costs were appropriate, calculated using the approved costs budget and appropriate deductions for uncertainty.

Court Disposition

Claimants' applications for permission to appeal refused; stay granted for Defendants' liability to Second Claimant; stay refused for Claimants' liability to Defendants; interim payments ordered.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused to Claimants.
  • Stay of costs payable by Defendants to Second Claimant pending appeal or further order.