Ultraframe UK Ltd v Clayton & Ors

Ultraframe UK Ltd v Clayton & Ors

Given the complexity and interlinked nature of the multiple actions, and the possibility that findings at trial may affect the just apportionment of costs, the court determined that the issue of costs should be reserved to the determination of the Leeds Actions. The London Action is struck out, but costs are reserved.

Parties
Claimant: Ultraframe UK Limited; Defendant: Alan Clayton; Defendant: Edwin Birkett; Defendant: Jeffrey Naden; Defendant: Gary John Fielding; Defendant: Northstar Systems Limited; Defendant: Seaquest Systems Limited; Defendant: Sally Anne Fielding; Defendant: The Burnden Group Public Limited Company; Defendant: Alumax Extrusions Limited; Defendant: Alcoa Extruded Products (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Preliminary Issues, Costs Determination
Outcome
London Action struck out; costs reserved to be determined with Leeds Actions.
Legal Topics
Design Rights, Ownership of Intellectual Property, Infringement, Costs, Consolidation of Actions
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Design Rights Ownership of Intellectual Property Infringement Costs Consolidation of Actions

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ultraframe UK Limited

Claimant

Alan Clayton

Defendant

Edwin Birkett

Defendant

Jeffrey Naden

Defendant

Gary John Fielding

Defendant

Northstar Systems Limited

Defendant

Seaquest Systems Limited

Defendant

Sally Anne Fielding

Defendant

The Burnden Group Public Limited Company

Defendant

Alumax Extrusions Limited

Defendant

Alcoa Extruded Products (UK) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Preliminary Issues, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who owns the design rights in the Quickfit conservatory designs?
  2. 2 Do design rights subsist in the relevant parts?
  3. 3 Were the design rights infringed?

Ratio Decidendi

Given the complexity and interlinked nature of the multiple actions, and the possibility that findings at trial may affect the just apportionment of costs, the court determined that the issue of costs should be reserved to the determination of the Leeds Actions. The London Action is struck out, but costs are reserved.

Court Disposition

London Action struck out; costs reserved to be determined with Leeds Actions.

Orders

  • London Action is struck out.
  • Costs of the London Action and preliminary issues are reserved to be determined at a later date, likely with the Leeds Actions.