Hearst Holdings Inc & Anor v AVELA Inc & Ors

Hearst Holdings Inc & Anor v AVELA Inc & Ors

The appellants failed to provide convincing evidence of impecuniosity or that the appeal would be stifled if the interim costs order was not stayed; therefore, the application for a stay was refused. CPR 52.9(3) precluded imposing a payment condition on the appeal. A final extension of time to file the skeleton argument was granted due to the circumstances, but no further extensions would be allowed.

Parties
Respondent/claimant: Hearst Holdings Inc; Respondent/claimant: Fleischer Studios Inc; Appellant/defendant: A.V.E.L.A. Inc; Appellant/defendant: Poeticgem Limited; Appellant/defendant: The Partnership (Trading) Limited; Appellant/defendant: U Wear Limited; Appellant/defendant: J Fox Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Applications Pending Appeal
Outcome
Appellants' application for stay of interim costs order refused; respondents' application for condition on prosecution of appeal dismissed; appellants granted final extension to file skeleton argument.
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Interim Costs Orders, Extension of Time, Trade Mark Infringement, Passing Off
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Stay of Execution Interim Costs Orders Extension of Time Trade Mark Infringement Passing Off

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hearst Holdings Inc

Respondent/claimant

Fleischer Studios Inc

Respondent/claimant

A.V.E.L.A. Inc

Appellant/defendant

Poeticgem Limited

Appellant/defendant

The Partnership (Trading) Limited

Appellant/defendant

U Wear Limited

Appellant/defendant

J Fox Limited

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Applications Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of an interim costs order should be granted to avoid stifling an appeal
  2. 2 Whether a condition for payment of costs can be imposed as a prerequisite for prosecuting the appeal
  3. 3 Whether time for filing the skeleton argument should be further extended

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed to provide convincing evidence of impecuniosity or that the appeal would be stifled if the interim costs order was not stayed; therefore, the application for a stay was refused. CPR 52.9(3) precluded imposing a payment condition on the appeal. A final extension of time to file the skeleton argument was granted due to the circumstances, but no further extensions would be allowed.

Court Disposition

Appellants' application for stay of interim costs order refused; respondents' application for condition on prosecution of appeal dismissed; appellants granted final extension to file skeleton argument.

Orders

  • Application for stay of interim costs order refused.
  • Respondents' application for condition of payment as prerequisite to appeal dismissed.