Ifejika v Ifejika & Anor [2011] EWPCC 28 (06 October 2011)

Ifejika v Ifejika & Anor [2011] EWPCC 28 (06 October 2011)

The application to adjourn is refused because the risk of injustice is lesser if the trial proceeds as scheduled, given the claimant's financial hardship and the need to bring the long-running dispute to a conclusion. The defendants may rely on Ian Dryburgh's witness statement, but its weight will be reduced as it will not be tested in cross-examination.

Citation
[2011] EWPCC 28
Parties
Claimant: Victor Ifejika; First Defendant: Charles Ifejika; Second Defendant: Lens Care Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Registered and Unregistered Design Infringement / Interlocutory Application to Adjourn Trial
Outcome
Application to adjourn trial refused.
Legal Topics
Registered Designs, Unregistered Design Rights, Adjournment of Trial, Case Management, Damages Assessment
Intellectual Property Law Civil Procedure Registered Designs Unregistered Design Rights Adjournment of Trial Case Management Damages Assessment

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Victor Ifejika

Claimant

Charles Ifejika

First Defendant

Lens Care Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property Registered and Unregistered Design Infringement / Interlocutory Application to Adjourn Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial should be adjourned to allow the defendants' witness (Ian Dryburgh) to attend
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's financial hardship justifies refusing the adjournment
  3. 3 Relevance and weight of Ian Dryburgh's evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The application to adjourn is refused because the risk of injustice is lesser if the trial proceeds as scheduled, given the claimant's financial hardship and the need to bring the long-running dispute to a conclusion. The defendants may rely on Ian Dryburgh's witness statement, but its weight will be reduced as it will not be tested in cross-examination.

Court Disposition

Application to adjourn trial refused.

Orders

  • Trial to proceed as scheduled on 19th and 20th October 2011.
  • Defendants permitted to rely on Ian Dryburgh's witness statement at trial.