British Sky Broadcasting Plc v Sky Home Services Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1101 (03 July 2008)

British Sky Broadcasting Plc v Sky Home Services Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1101 (03 July 2008)

The trial judge failed to take into account the full consequences of the failed common design and telemarketing claims against the Crane defendants, which resulted in disproportionate costs and trial time for them. The Court of Appeal held that a further reduction in the costs apportioned to the Crane defendants was warranted, substituting 13.5% for the original 27%.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Civ 1101
Parties
Appellant: British Sky Broadcasting PLC; Respondent: Sky Home Services Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; permission to appeal granted.
Legal Topics
Passing Off, Costs, Apportionment of Costs, Goodwill, Joint Tortfeasorship
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Passing Off Costs Apportionment of Costs Goodwill Joint Tortfeasorship

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

Parties

British Sky Broadcasting PLC

Appellant

Sky Home Services Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in apportioning 27% of the claimants' costs to the Crane defendants despite their success on certain issues, particularly the failed telemarketing and common design claims.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge failed to take into account the full consequences of the failed common design and telemarketing claims against the Crane defendants, which resulted in disproportionate costs and trial time for them. The Court of Appeal held that a further reduction in the costs apportioned to the Crane defendants was warranted, substituting 13.5% for the original 27%.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; permission to appeal granted.

Orders

  • Substitute 13.5% for 27% in the costs order against the Crane defendants.
  • Application granted; appeal allowed.