Comprop v Moran [2002] UR 220A (21 November 2002)

Comprop v Moran [2002] UR 220A (21 November 2002)

The appeal was not determined on its merits but was administratively managed to ensure expeditious resolution; the Court directed that the appeal be heard at the next sitting unless the Royal Court could resolve outstanding matters earlier. The judgment also highlighted systemic issues with the legal aid system's practice of changing advocates between trial and appeal.

Citation
[2002] UR 220A
Parties
First Plaintiff/first RESPONDENT: Comprop Limited (formerly known as Channel Islands Communications (Television) Limited.); Second Plaintiff/second RESPONDENT: Perry's Limited; Defendant/appellant: David Moran (trading as Adsell)
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
21 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory and Partial Final Judgment Appeal
Outcome
Appeal stayed and directions given for expeditious hearing; no final determination on merits.
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Legal Aid Procedure, Change of Legal Representation, Interlocutory Orders
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Copyright Infringement Legal Aid Procedure Change of Legal Representation Interlocutory 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Comprop Limited (formerly known as Channel Islands Communications (Television) Limited.)

First Plaintiff/first RESPONDENT

Perry's Limited

Second Plaintiff/second RESPONDENT

David Moran (trading as Adsell)

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Interlocutory and Partial Final Judgment Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant infringed copyright in Perry's map by producing Wall, Wayfinder, and Handy maps in 1996 and 1997
  2. 2 Whether the First Plaintiff was the equitable owner of the copyright in Perry's map
  3. 3 Whether the legal aid system's practice of changing advocates between trial and appeal is appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was not determined on its merits but was administratively managed to ensure expeditious resolution; the Court directed that the appeal be heard at the next sitting unless the Royal Court could resolve outstanding matters earlier. The judgment also highlighted systemic issues with the legal aid system's practice of changing advocates between trial and appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal stayed and directions given for expeditious hearing; no final determination on merits.

Orders

  • Appeal to be heard at March 2003 sitting of the Court of Appeal unless Royal Court resolves outstanding matters earlier.
  • Representations to be made to secure earliest possible Royal Court hearing date.