Xylum Corporation (USA) v Gorog & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 131 (2 February 2001)

Xylum Corporation (USA) v Gorog & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 131 (2 February 2001)

Permission to appeal was refused because the applications were out of time without satisfactory explanation, the underlying judgments were based on findings of fact not open to appellate review, the Human Rights Act was inapplicable, and the Tomlin order was a consent order not subject to appeal without being set aside for proven duress, which was not established.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 131
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Xylum Corporation (USA); First Defendant/applicant: Peter Gorog; Second Defendant: Iren B Kovacs; Third Defendant: Diana A Gorog; Fourth Defendant: Montrose Diagnostics Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Orders of the High Court (patents Court)
Outcome
Applications for permission to appeal and extension of time refused.
Legal Topics
Patent Ownership, Breach of Contract, Consent Orders, Appeal Out of Time, Human Rights Act Applicability
Intellectual Property Contract Law Civil Procedure Patent Ownership Breach of Contract Consent Orders Appeal Out of Time Human Rights Act Applicability

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Xylum Corporation (USA)

Claimant/respondent

Peter Gorog

First Defendant/applicant

Iren B Kovacs

Second Defendant

Diana A Gorog

Third Defendant

Montrose Diagnostics Limited

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Orders of the High Court (patents Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted against three orders relating to patent ownership and contractual obligations
  2. 2 Whether the Human Rights Act 1998 applies to the dispute
  3. 3 Whether the Tomlin consent order was entered into under duress

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal was refused because the applications were out of time without satisfactory explanation, the underlying judgments were based on findings of fact not open to appellate review, the Human Rights Act was inapplicable, and the Tomlin order was a consent order not subject to appeal without being set aside for proven duress, which was not established.

Court Disposition

Applications for permission to appeal and extension of time refused.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused for all three orders.
  • Application for extension of time refused.