Photobooth Props Limited & Anor. v Nepbh Limited & Ors.

Photobooth Props Limited & Anor. v Nepbh Limited & Ors.

The costs of the applications are to be reserved to trial under CPR 63.26(1) because the issues determined were not predominant, the court is not in a position to assess proportionality, and there was no unreasonable conduct by the Defendants to justify an exception.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: PHOTOBOOTH PROPS LIMITED; Claimant: LILY’S PRINTS LIMITED; Defendant: NEPBH LIMITED; Defendant: QUINN UK HOLDINGS LIMITED; Defendant: CLAIRE QUINN; Defendant: REECE QUINN; Defendant: MICHAEL QUINN; Defendant: YOUR PRINT SUPPLIES LIMITED; Defendant: YOUR PHOTOBOOTH PROPS LIMITED; Defendant: MICHAEL CONNOR QUINN
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property / Costs Ruling After Summary Judgment and Applications
Outcome
Costs of the applications reserved to trial; costs of the case management conference to be costs in the case.
Legal Topics
Costs, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Security for Costs, Case Management Conference
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Costs Summary Judgment Strike Out Security for Costs Case Management Conference

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PHOTOBOOTH PROPS LIMITED

Claimant

LILY’S PRINTS LIMITED

Claimant

NEPBH LIMITED

Defendant

QUINN UK HOLDINGS LIMITED

Defendant

CLAIRE QUINN

Defendant

REECE QUINN

Defendant

MICHAEL QUINN

Defendant

YOUR PRINT SUPPLIES LIMITED

Defendant

YOUR PHOTOBOOTH PROPS LIMITED

Defendant

MICHAEL CONNOR QUINN

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property / Costs Ruling After Summary Judgment and Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs of applications should be summarily assessed or reserved to trial under CPR 63.26(1)
  2. 2 Whether Defendants' conduct was unreasonable to justify off-scale costs under CPR 63.26(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The costs of the applications are to be reserved to trial under CPR 63.26(1) because the issues determined were not predominant, the court is not in a position to assess proportionality, and there was no unreasonable conduct by the Defendants to justify an exception.

Court Disposition

Costs of the applications reserved to trial; costs of the case management conference to be costs in the case.

Orders

  • Costs of the applications reserved to trial under CPR 63.26(1)
  • Costs of the case management conference to be costs in the case