Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding & Ors

Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding & Ors

Permission to appeal refused on main action, IP action, Leeds action, and contempt proceedings as there was no realistic prospect of success; permission granted on costs of main action due to arguable issue whether dishonesty should displace usual costs rule.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Ultraframe (UK) Ltd; Respondent: Gary John Fielding; Respondent: Northstar Systems Ltd (in liquidation); Respondent: Seaquest Systems Ltd (in liquidation); Respondent: Alan Clayton; Respondent: Jeffrey Naden; Respondent: BCP Plastics Ltd; Respondent: The Burnden Group plc; Respondent: Sally Anne Fielding; Respondent: Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd; Respondent: K2 Conservatory Roof Systems Ltd; Part 20 Defendant: Edwin Birkett
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused on all grounds except costs; permission granted on costs of main action
Legal Topics
Appeal, Costs, Director's Duties, Reflective Loss, Intellectual Property, Contempt of Court
Company Law Civil Procedure Appeal Costs Director's Duties Reflective Loss Intellectual Property Contempt of Court

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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ultraframe (UK) Ltd

Appellant

Gary John Fielding

Respondent

Northstar Systems Ltd (in liquidation)

Respondent

Seaquest Systems Ltd (in liquidation)

Respondent

Alan Clayton

Respondent

Jeffrey Naden

Respondent

BCP Plastics Ltd

Respondent

The Burnden Group plc

Respondent

Sally Anne Fielding

Respondent

Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd

Respondent

K2 Conservatory Roof Systems Ltd

Respondent

Edwin Birkett

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted on findings relating to transfer of assets and IP licence validity
  2. 2 Whether costs order should be appealed due to dishonesty of successful party
  3. 3 Whether strike out of Leeds action was correct

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal refused on main action, IP action, Leeds action, and contempt proceedings as there was no realistic prospect of success; permission granted on costs of main action due to arguable issue whether dishonesty should displace usual costs rule.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused on all grounds except costs; permission granted on costs of main action

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused on main action, IP action, Leeds action, and contempt proceedings
  • Permission to appeal granted on costs of main action; scope of costs appeal to be determined by further submissions