Interflora Inc & Anor v Marks and Spencer Plc & Anor

Interflora Inc & Anor v Marks and Spencer Plc & Anor

Permission is granted to adduce witness evidence from respondents identified in the first pilot survey, as evidence from such witnesses is admissible and may be probative even if the survey itself is not statistically valid or contains flawed questions. However, responses to question six in the second pilot survey are so tainted by misleading phrasing that evidence from those respondents is inadmissible.

Parties
Claimant: Interflora Inc; Claimant: Interflora British Unit; Defendant: Marks and Spencer PLC; Defendant: Flowers Direct Online Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Adduce Evidence
Outcome
Permission granted in part
Legal Topics
Survey Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Witness Selection, Consumer Surveys, Case Management
Intellectual Property Evidence Survey Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Witness Selection Consumer Surveys Case Management

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Interflora Inc

Claimant

Interflora British Unit

Claimant

Marks and Spencer PLC

Defendant

Flowers Direct Online Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Adduce Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to adduce witness evidence from respondents identified in pilot surveys
  2. 2 Admissibility and probative value of evidence from survey respondents where the survey itself is not statistically valid
  3. 3 Impact of leading or misleading questions in surveys on admissibility of resulting evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Permission is granted to adduce witness evidence from respondents identified in the first pilot survey, as evidence from such witnesses is admissible and may be probative even if the survey itself is not statistically valid or contains flawed questions. However, responses to question six in the second pilot survey are so tainted by misleading phrasing that evidence from those respondents is inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Permission granted in part

Orders

  • Interflora is granted permission to adduce witness evidence from respondents identified in the first pilot survey.
  • Permission is refused for evidence from respondents identified in the second pilot survey.