Fred Perry (Holdings) Ltd v Brands Plaza Trading Ltd & Anor

Fred Perry (Holdings) Ltd v Brands Plaza Trading Ltd & Anor

The judge's refusal to grant relief from sanctions was within his discretion and justified by repeated non-compliance, lack of prompt application, and absence of good explanation. The interim payment order was set aside because it relied on evidence not disclosed to the defendants. Other orders, including injunction, inquiry, and costs, were upheld.

Parties
Claimant: Fred Perry (Holdings) Limited; Defendant: Brands Plaza Trading Limited; Defendant: Mr Ivan Genis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Relief From Sanctions and Related Orders
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; interim payment order set aside; other orders upheld.
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Case Management, Trademark Infringement, Passing Off, Disclosure Obligations, Interim Payments, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Relief From Sanctions Case Management Trademark Infringement Passing Off Disclosure Obligations Interim Payments +1 more

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

Parties

Fred Perry (Holdings) Limited

Claimant

Brands Plaza Trading Limited

Defendant

Mr Ivan Genis

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Relief From Sanctions and Related Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in granting judgment for the claimant following strike-out of defences
  3. 3 Whether the scope of inquiry into damages/account of profits should be limited

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's refusal to grant relief from sanctions was within his discretion and justified by repeated non-compliance, lack of prompt application, and absence of good explanation. The interim payment order was set aside because it relied on evidence not disclosed to the defendants. Other orders, including injunction, inquiry, and costs, were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; interim payment order set aside; other orders upheld.

Orders

  • Refusal of relief from sanctions upheld
  • Judgment for claimant upheld