Price & Ors v Flitcraft Ltd & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 850 (09 July 2020)

Price & Ors v Flitcraft Ltd & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 850 (09 July 2020)

The Court of Appeal held that the Recorder erred in granting summary judgment because the defendants/appellants' new evidence and amended pleadings raised triable issues regarding the chain of title to the patents and copyrights, and procedural deficiencies in the summary judgment application undermined the fairness of the process. The new evidence could not have been easily obtained for the original hearing and, taken with the amended defence, raised a real prospect of a successful defence. Summary judgment was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for trial.

Citation
[2020] EWCA Civ 850
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Philip Price; Claimant/respondent: Supawall Limited; Claimant/respondent: Supahome by Maple Limited; Defendant/appellant: Flitcraft Limited; Defendant/appellant: Flitcraft Timber Frame Limited; Defendant/appellant: Garry Flitcroft; Defendant/appellant: Thomas Flitcroft
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Summary Judgment in the High Court (patents Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; summary judgment set aside; matter remitted for trial.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Copyright Infringement, Passing Off, Summary Judgment, Procedural Irregularity, Assignment of Intellectual Property, Bankruptcy and Insolvency
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patent Infringement Copyright Infringement Passing Off Summary Judgment Procedural Irregularity Assignment of Intellectual Property +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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Price

Claimant/respondent

Supawall Limited

Claimant/respondent

Supahome by Maple Limited

Claimant/respondent

Flitcraft Limited

Defendant/appellant

Flitcraft Timber Frame Limited

Defendant/appellant

Garry Flitcroft

Defendant/appellant

Thomas Flitcroft

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Summary Judgment in the High Court (patents Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants/respondents had title to sue for patent and copyright infringement
  2. 2 Whether the defendants/appellants had a real prospect of defending the patent and copyright claims
  3. 3 Whether procedural irregularities in the summary judgment application rendered the decision unjust

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the Recorder erred in granting summary judgment because the defendants/appellants' new evidence and amended pleadings raised triable issues regarding the chain of title to the patents and copyrights, and procedural deficiencies in the summary judgment application undermined the fairness of the process. The new evidence could not have been easily obtained for the original hearing and, taken with the amended defence, raised a real prospect of a successful defence. Summary judgment was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; summary judgment set aside; matter remitted for trial.

Orders

  • Summary judgment in favour of Supawall on patent and copyright claims set aside
  • Application to admit new evidence (Mr Craig's affidavit) granted