Baillie & Ors v Bromhead & Co (A Firm) & Ors

Baillie & Ors v Bromhead & Co (A Firm) & Ors

Dr Spencer was not negligent in advice regarding priority or Hirotec patent; advice about scope of patents from DualGlo PCT was not negligent; Hirotec patent was not worthless; scope of duty did not extend to losses from failure of DualGlo business; no duty of care owed to Lacomp except for specific investor letters, which did not cause loss; only recoverable loss would have been fees paid if negligence proven; counterclaim for unpaid fees succeeds.

Parties
Claimant: Craig Baillie; Claimant: Stephen Lambert; Claimant: Jameson Technologies; Claimant: DualGlo Limited; Claimant: Lacomp PLC; Claimant: Lacomp Nominees Limited; Claimant: DualGlo Technology PLC; Defendant: Bromhead & Co; Defendant: Bromhead Johnson; Defendant: Michael Spencer
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Scope of Retainer, Causation, Quantum, Reflective Loss
Professional Negligence Intellectual Property Patent Law Duty of Care Patent Infringement Patent Validity Scope of Retainer Causation +2 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 7 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Craig Baillie

Claimant

Stephen Lambert

Claimant

Jameson Technologies

Claimant

DualGlo Limited

Claimant

Lacomp PLC

Claimant

Lacomp Nominees Limited

Claimant

DualGlo Technology PLC

Claimant

Bromhead & Co

Defendant

Bromhead Johnson

Defendant

Michael Spencer

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr Spencer was negligent in advice regarding patent prosecution and purchase of Hirotec patent
  2. 2 Whether Hirotec patent was worthless
  3. 3 Whether Dr Spencer owed a duty of care to investor claimants (Lacomp)

Ratio Decidendi

Dr Spencer was not negligent in advice regarding priority or Hirotec patent; advice about scope of patents from DualGlo PCT was not negligent; Hirotec patent was not worthless; scope of duty did not extend to losses from failure of DualGlo business; no duty of care owed to Lacomp except for specific investor letters, which did not cause loss; only recoverable loss would have been fees paid if negligence proven; counterclaim for unpaid fees succeeds.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed

Orders

  • Claimants' action dismissed
  • Defendants' counterclaim for £57,328.58 plus interest allowed