Sussex Heights (Brighton) Ltd v Coady [2012] EWPCC 36 (10 August 2012)

Sussex Heights (Brighton) Ltd v Coady [2012] EWPCC 36 (10 August 2012)

The court found, based on witness evidence, that the document relied upon was a draft heads of agreement and not a binding settlement; therefore, the action has not settled and must continue.

Citation
[2012] EWPCC 36
Parties
Claimant: Sussex Heights (Brighton) Limited; Defendant: Tom Coady
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Passing Off / Case Management Conference; Determination of Settlement Issue
Outcome
Action not settled; proceedings to continue.
Legal Topics
Passing Off, Settlement Agreements, Case Management
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Passing Off Settlement Agreements Case Management

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sussex Heights (Brighton) Limited

Claimant

Tom Coady

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Passing Off / Case Management Conference; Determination of Settlement Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the action for passing off has been settled by agreement
  2. 2 Whether the document relied upon constitutes a binding settlement agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, based on witness evidence, that the document relied upon was a draft heads of agreement and not a binding settlement; therefore, the action has not settled and must continue.

Court Disposition

Action not settled; proceedings to continue.

Orders

  • No disclosure ordered; no cross-examination at trial.
  • Directions for trial confirmed.