Coward v Phaestos Ltd & Ors

Coward v Phaestos Ltd & Ors

The Court of Appeal held that the judge was entitled to find that IKOS achieved a significantly better result at trial than was offered in the Calderbank offer, particularly due to the undertakings, removal of code, and confirmatory assignments not included in the offer. The judge's exercise of discretion in awarding IKOS the bulk of the costs, with a 15% reduction for the counterclaim element not pursued, was not wrong in principle or plainly unsustainable. The appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Martin John Coward; Respondent: Phaestos Limited; Respondent: Mindimaxnox LLP; Respondent: IKOS CIF Limited; Respondent: IKOS Asset Management Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) on Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs, Calderbank Offers, Copyright, Database Rights, Injunctions, Settlement Offers
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Costs Calderbank Offers Copyright Database Rights Injunctions Settlement Offers

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin John Coward

Appellant

Phaestos Limited

Respondent

Mindimaxnox LLP

Respondent

IKOS CIF Limited

Respondent

IKOS Asset Management Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) on Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Calderbank offer made by Dr Coward should have affected the costs order in favour of IKOS
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in awarding IKOS the bulk of the costs despite the Calderbank offer
  3. 3 Whether the apportionment of costs regarding the counterclaim was correct

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge was entitled to find that IKOS achieved a significantly better result at trial than was offered in the Calderbank offer, particularly due to the undertakings, removal of code, and confirmatory assignments not included in the offer. The judge's exercise of discretion in awarding IKOS the bulk of the costs, with a 15% reduction for the counterclaim element not pursued, was not wrong in principle or plainly unsustainable. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Costs order of the High Court (Chancery Division) upheld
  • Appellant to pay Respondents' costs of the appeal