77M Ltd v Ordnance Survey Ltd

The contractual documents were ambiguous and supported both parties' interpretations. The factual matrix was disputed and relevant. Therefore, it could not be said that 77M had no real prospect of success, and summary judgment was inappropriate.

Parties: Claimant: 77M Limited; Defendant: Ordnance Survey Limited; Part 20 Defendant: GeoPlace LLP; Part 20 Defendant: The Keeper of Public Records
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 14 December 2018
Procedural Posture: Civil Intellectual Property / Application for Summary Judgment
Outcome: Application for summary judgment dismissed
Legal Topics: Summary Judgment, Interpretation of Contracts, Inducement of Breach of Contract, Costs Orders

Contract Law Intellectual Property Summary Judgment Interpretation of Contracts Inducement of Breach of Contract Costs Orders

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

77M Limited

Claimant

Ordnance Survey Limited

Defendant

GeoPlace LLP

Part 20 Defendant

The Keeper of Public Records

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Intellectual Property / Application for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the A1 Match Licence was a contract for a one-off service or an ongoing service
2 Whether Ordnance Survey induced a breach of contract by HM Land Registry
3 Whether summary judgment should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment dismissed

Orders

Ordnance Survey's application for summary judgment dismissed
Ordnance Survey to pay 77M £15,000 on account of costs for the summary judgment application