Stephenson Harwood LLP v Medien Patentverwaltung AG & Ors

Stephenson Harwood LLP v Medien Patentverwaltung AG & Ors

MPV, by failing to make a Part 11 application within the required time and by engaging with the merits of the claim, is to be treated as having accepted the court's jurisdiction to determine all issues in the stakeholder application, including those raised by Mr Kagan. The Deputy Master was correct in his interpretation and application of CPR Part 11.

Parties
Claimant: Stephenson Harwood LLP; First Respondent/appellant: Medien Patentverwaltung AG; Second Respondent: Michael Kagan (as administrator of the estate of Irving Kagan)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Directions in Stakeholder Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Stakeholder Applications, Jurisdiction, Submission to Jurisdiction, Civil Procedure Rules (cpr) Part 11, Lugano Convention
Civil Procedure Stakeholder Applications Jurisdiction Submission to Jurisdiction Civil Procedure Rules (cpr) Part 11 Lugano Convention

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

Parties

Stephenson Harwood LLP

Claimant

Medien Patentverwaltung AG

First Respondent/appellant

Michael Kagan (as administrator of the estate of Irving Kagan)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Directions in Stakeholder Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does CPR Part 11 apply to stakeholder applications?
  2. 2 What is the effect of failing to make a Part 11 application in stakeholder proceedings?
  3. 3 Did MPV submit to the jurisdiction by conduct?

Ratio Decidendi

MPV, by failing to make a Part 11 application within the required time and by engaging with the merits of the claim, is to be treated as having accepted the court's jurisdiction to determine all issues in the stakeholder application, including those raised by Mr Kagan. The Deputy Master was correct in his interpretation and application of CPR Part 11.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Directions for trial made by the Deputy Master are upheld