Actial Farmaceutica LDA v De Simone

Actial Farmaceutica LDA v De Simone

The Court of Appeal found no breach of undertakings by Actial, no material misleading of the court, and no error in the High Court's approach to the risk of cloning or the balance of hardship. The deputy judge properly evaluated the evidence and legal principles. The substituted service order was justified by urgency and the risk of the May order being rendered ineffective. Both appeals were dismissed.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Actial Farmaceutica LDA; Defendant/appellant: Prof Claudio De Simone
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) – Judgment on Appeal Against Mandatory Injunction and Substituted Service Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Mandatory Orders, Service of Process, Breach of Undertakings, Jurisdiction, Committal Applications
Commercial Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions Mandatory Orders Service of Process Breach of Undertakings Jurisdiction +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Actial Farmaceutica LDA

Claimant/respondent

Prof Claudio De Simone

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) – Judgment on Appeal Against Mandatory Injunction and Substituted Service Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in granting a mandatory injunction (the May order) requiring the Professor to instruct supply of VSL#3 to Actial's packaging agents
  2. 2 Whether Actial breached undertakings given to the court or misled the court
  3. 3 Whether the High Court erred in granting substituted service of the committal application (the June order) under CPR 6.15(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found no breach of undertakings by Actial, no material misleading of the court, and no error in the High Court's approach to the risk of cloning or the balance of hardship. The deputy judge properly evaluated the evidence and legal principles. The substituted service order was justified by urgency and the risk of the May order being rendered ineffective. Both appeals were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against the May order (mandatory injunction) dismissed
  • Appeal against the June order (substituted service) dismissed