Shazam Productions v Only Fools the Dining Experience & Ors (Costs)

Shazam Productions v Only Fools the Dining Experience & Ors (Costs)

The court held that, although the Brandsmiths Defendants were successful in their application to transfer the claim to the IPEC, the incomplete and late evidence regarding their financial position justified only a partial costs order. The Claimant was ordered to pay 50% of the Defendants' assessed costs. The same approach applied to the Fourth Defendant, and no wasted costs order was justified. The Fourth Defendant's litigant in person costs were assessed at a reasonable sum in the absence of proof of higher financial loss.

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; Defendant: Imagination Workshop Limited; Defendant: Imagination Workshop Festival Limited; Defendant: Jared Harford
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Costs Judgment (post Transfer Application) / Post Interlocutory Application, Costs Determination
Outcome
Claimant to pay 50% of assessed costs of the Brandsmiths Defendants and Fourth Defendant within 14 days; no wasted costs order.
Legal Topics
Costs, Transfer of Proceedings, Summary Assessment, Litigant in Person Costs
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Costs Transfer of Proceedings Summary Assessment Litigant in Person Costs

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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

Imagination Workshop Limited

Defendant

Imagination Workshop Festival Limited

Defendant

Jared Harford

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Judgment (post Transfer Application) / Post Interlocutory Application, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate costs order following the transfer of the claim to the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC)?
  2. 2 Should the Claimant pay the Defendants' costs of the transfer application, and if so, in what proportion?
  3. 3 Is a wasted costs order against the Claimant's solicitors or counsel justified?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, although the Brandsmiths Defendants were successful in their application to transfer the claim to the IPEC, the incomplete and late evidence regarding their financial position justified only a partial costs order. The Claimant was ordered to pay 50% of the Defendants' assessed costs. The same approach applied to the Fourth Defendant, and no wasted costs order was justified. The Fourth Defendant's litigant in person costs were assessed at a reasonable sum in the absence of proof of higher financial loss.

Court Disposition

Claimant to pay 50% of assessed costs of the Brandsmiths Defendants and Fourth Defendant within 14 days; no wasted costs order.

Orders

  • Claimant to pay £10,100 to the Brandsmiths Defendants within 14 days.
  • Claimant to pay £2,127.50 to the Fourth Defendant within 14 days.