Ultraframe UK Ltd v Clayton & Ors [2003] EWHC 242 (Ch) (14 February 2003)
The issue of costs should be reserved to the determination of the Leeds Actions due to the complexity and interlinked nature of the disputes, and the possibility that later findings may affect the justice of costs allocation.
- Citation
- [2003] EWHC 242 (Ch)
- Parties
- Claimant: Ultraframe UK Limited; Defendant: Alan Clayton; Defendant: Edwin Birkett; Defendant: Jeffrey Naden; Defendant: Burnden Group Plc; Defendant: Mr and Mrs Fielding
- 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 Leeds Actions
- Legal Topics
- Design Rights, Ownership, 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.
Parties
Ultraframe UK Limited
Claimant
Alan Clayton
Defendant
Edwin Birkett
Defendant
Jeffrey Naden
Defendant
Burnden Group Plc
Defendant
Mr and Mrs Fielding
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Preliminary Issues, Costs Determination
Legal Issues
- 1 Ownership of design rights
- 2 Subsistence of design rights
- 3 Infringement of design rights
Ratio Decidendi
The issue of costs should be reserved to the determination of the Leeds Actions due to the complexity and interlinked nature of the disputes, and the possibility that later findings may affect the justice of costs allocation.
Court Disposition
London Action struck out; costs reserved to Leeds Actions
Orders
- London Action struck out
- Costs of London Action and preliminary issues reserved to determination of Leeds Actions
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment