SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd

SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd

Enforcement of the US judgment for compensatory damages based on fraudulent inducement is precluded by issue estoppel and Henderson v Henderson abuse of process, as the fraud claim is dependent on contract terms already determined void under the Software Directive in English proceedings. Enforcement is also contrary to public policy embodied in the Software Directive, which prohibits monopolisation of ideas and renders relevant contract terms null and void. The Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 bars enforcement of the UDTPA claim as a judgment for multiple damages. WPL is entitled to recover under s.6 PTIA for payments made on account of multiple damages.

Parties
Claimant: SAS Institute Inc.; Defendant: World Programming Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Enforcement / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed in part
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Issue Estoppel, Abuse of Process, Public Policy, Software Directive, Protection of Trading Interests Act, Fraudulent Inducement, Multiple Damages
Conflict of Laws Intellectual Property Contract Law Competition Law Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Issue Estoppel Abuse of Process Public Policy +4 more

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SAS Institute Inc.

Claimant

World Programming Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Enforcement / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether enforcement of the US judgment for compensatory damages based on fraudulent inducement is precluded by issue estoppel or Henderson v Henderson abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether enforcement is barred by public policy under the Software Directive
  3. 3 Whether enforcement is barred by the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 (PTIA)

Ratio Decidendi

Enforcement of the US judgment for compensatory damages based on fraudulent inducement is precluded by issue estoppel and Henderson v Henderson abuse of process, as the fraud claim is dependent on contract terms already determined void under the Software Directive in English proceedings. Enforcement is also contrary to public policy embodied in the Software Directive, which prohibits monopolisation of ideas and renders relevant contract terms null and void. The Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 bars enforcement of the UDTPA claim as a judgment for multiple damages. WPL is entitled to recover under s.6 PTIA for payments made on account of multiple damages.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed in part

Orders

  • Enforcement of the US judgment for compensatory damages based on fraudulent inducement and UDTPA claim is refused
  • WPL entitled to recover from SAS two-thirds of payments made on account of multiple damages under s.6 PTIA