The Bargain Pages Ltd. v Midland Independent Newspapers Ltd.

The Bargain Pages Ltd. v Midland Independent Newspapers Ltd.

MINL was in breach of clause 6.1 of the Agreement for failing to procure the adherence of MNL (when it was a subsidiary) and Trinity Mirror plc (as parent) to the Agreement, entitling BPL/BPML to damages but not injunctive relief, as MINL cannot now comply. MNL and Trinity Mirror plc are not parties to the Agreement and cannot be joined as defendants; their refusal to adhere does not amount to unlawful interference. BPML may be joined as claimant; damages for breach by MINL may be pursued in this action.

Parties
Claimant: The Bargain Pages Ltd; Defendant: Midland Independent Newspapers Ltd; Proposed Additional Claimant: Bargain Pages Media Ltd; Proposed Additional Defendant: Midland Newspapers Ltd; Proposed Additional Defendant: Trinity Mirror plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil (passing Off) / Application to Join Parties, Construe Tomlin Order, and Seek Injunctive/damages Relief
Outcome
Application allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Passing Off, Tomlin Orders, Injunctions, Damages, Joinder of Parties, Unlawful Interference With Contractual Relations
Intellectual Property Contract Law Civil Procedure Passing Off Tomlin Orders Injunctions Damages Joinder of Parties +1 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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Bargain Pages Ltd

Claimant

Midland Independent Newspapers Ltd

Defendant

Bargain Pages Media Ltd

Proposed Additional Claimant

Midland Newspapers Ltd

Proposed Additional Defendant

Trinity Mirror plc

Proposed Additional Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (passing Off) / Application to Join Parties, Construe Tomlin Order, and Seek Injunctive/damages Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether BPML and MNL/Trinity Mirror plc should be joined as parties to the first passing off action
  2. 2 Whether BPL or BPML has a cause of action against MINL, MNL, or Trinity Mirror plc under the Tomlin order
  3. 3 Whether MINL breached clause 6.1 of the Agreement and the consequences

Ratio Decidendi

MINL was in breach of clause 6.1 of the Agreement for failing to procure the adherence of MNL (when it was a subsidiary) and Trinity Mirror plc (as parent) to the Agreement, entitling BPL/BPML to damages but not injunctive relief, as MINL cannot now comply. MNL and Trinity Mirror plc are not parties to the Agreement and cannot be joined as defendants; their refusal to adhere does not amount to unlawful interference. BPML may be joined as claimant; damages for breach by MINL may be pursued in this action.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • BPML joined as second claimant
  • Enquiry directed as to damages sustained by claimants from MINL's breach of clause 6.1 regarding Trinity Mirror plc (since August 1999) and MNL (January 1997 to January 2001)