Shazam Productions Ltd v Only Fools the Dining Experience Ltd & Ors

Shazam Productions Ltd v Only Fools the Dining Experience Ltd & Ors

The overriding objective of ensuring access to justice for all parties outweighs the complexity and potential value of the claim. The evidence shows Defendants can only afford to defend in IPEC. The case is suitable for IPEC provided Defendants tailor their case for a focused trial not exceeding three days. Without costs protection for all Defendants, access to justice is at risk. The claim is ordered to be transferred to IPEC for case management.

Parties
Claimant: Shazam Productions Limited; Defendant: Only Fools The Dining Experience Limited; Defendant: Imagination Workshop PTY Limited; Defendant: Alison Gay Pollard-Mansergh; Defendant: Peter Gordon Mansergh; Defendant: Katherine Mary Gillham
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Copyright and Passing Off Claim / Application for Transfer to Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (ipec)
Outcome
Application granted; claim transferred to IPEC
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Passing Off, Case Transfer, Access to Justice, Fair Dealing (parody/pastiche)
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Copyright Infringement Passing Off Case Transfer Access to Justice Fair Dealing (parody/pastiche)

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 16
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shazam Productions Limited

Claimant

Only Fools The Dining Experience Limited

Defendant

Imagination Workshop PTY Limited

Defendant

Alison Gay Pollard-Mansergh

Defendant

Peter Gordon Mansergh

Defendant

Katherine Mary Gillham

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Copyright and Passing Off Claim / Application for Transfer to Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (ipec)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings should be transferred to the IPEC
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants can only afford to defend the claim in the IPEC
  3. 3 Whether the complexity and value of the claim are suitable for IPEC

Ratio Decidendi

The overriding objective of ensuring access to justice for all parties outweighs the complexity and potential value of the claim. The evidence shows Defendants can only afford to defend in IPEC. The case is suitable for IPEC provided Defendants tailor their case for a focused trial not exceeding three days. Without costs protection for all Defendants, access to justice is at risk. The claim is ordered to be transferred to IPEC for case management.

Court Disposition

Application granted; claim transferred to IPEC

Orders

  • Claim transferred to the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court for case management conference.
  • Costs of the transfer applications to be costs in the claim, subject to further submissions by 23 October 2020.