Finecard International Ltd (t/a the Ninja Corporation) v Urquhart Dyke & Lord (A Firm) & Anor

Finecard International Ltd (t/a the Ninja Corporation) v Urquhart Dyke & Lord (A Firm) & Anor

The Defendants’ causation defence has no real prospect of success because, regardless of the arguments about New York law or the construction of the agreements, the failure to register the 1999 licence exposed the Claimant to the risk of losing damages, and the relevant transaction for the period in question was the 1999 agreement, which was not registered. The chain of causation was not broken by the conduct of the Claimant’s former legal advisors.

Parties
Claimant: Finecard International Ltd (T/A The Ninja Corporation); First Defendant: Urquhart Dyke & Lord (A Firm); Second Defendant: Michael Ajello
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Professional Negligence / Summary Judgment Application Under CPR 24
Outcome
Claimant’s application allowed; Defendants’ causation defence summarily dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Registration, Exclusive Licence, Causation, Damages, Chain of Causation, Summary Judgment
Professional Negligence Intellectual Property Law Patent Registration Exclusive Licence Causation Damages Chain of Causation Summary Judgment

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Finecard International Ltd (T/A The Ninja Corporation)

Claimant

Urquhart Dyke & Lord (A Firm)

First Defendant

Michael Ajello

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Professional Negligence / Summary Judgment Application Under CPR 24

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants’ causation defence has any real prospect of success and should be summarily dismissed
  2. 2 Whether failure to register the 1999 licence broke the chain of causation for damages
  3. 3 Whether the arguments not raised before Pumfrey J constituted a break in causation

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants’ causation defence has no real prospect of success because, regardless of the arguments about New York law or the construction of the agreements, the failure to register the 1999 licence exposed the Claimant to the risk of losing damages, and the relevant transaction for the period in question was the 1999 agreement, which was not registered. The chain of causation was not broken by the conduct of the Claimant’s former legal advisors.

Court Disposition

Claimant’s application allowed; Defendants’ causation defence summarily dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants’ causation defence in paragraphs 16.3, 17-21 and 25 of their Defence struck out
  • Leave to amend Particulars of Claim (by agreement)