Airconco UK Limited v DC Air Condition and Refrigeration Limited

Airconco UK Limited v DC Air Condition and Refrigeration Limited

The District Judge was entitled to rely on Airconco's advertised licence rate as the best available evidence of the notional licence fee, and previous payments were not shown to be materially different from the hypothetical scenario; the appeal grounds did not demonstrate any error of law or principle.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Airconco UK Limited; Defendant/appellant: DC Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Damages Assessment, Appeals, Costs
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Copyright Infringement Damages Assessment Appeals Costs

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Airconco UK Limited

Claimant/respondent

DC Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Judge erred in assessing damages based on Airconco's advertised licence rate rather than the cost of commissioning new copy
  2. 2 Whether previous licence payments were tainted by litigation and thus unreliable as evidence of a going rate
  3. 3 Whether the District Judge failed to give proper weight to copywriter evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge was entitled to rely on Airconco's advertised licence rate as the best available evidence of the notional licence fee, and previous payments were not shown to be materially different from the hypothetical scenario; the appeal grounds did not demonstrate any error of law or principle.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Retrospective permission granted to file Appellant’s Notice out of time
  • Damages award of £10,000 upheld