Tayplan Ltd v. D & A Contracts [2005] ScotCS CSOH_17 (28 January 2005)

Tayplan Ltd v. D & A Contracts [2005] ScotCS CSOH_17 (28 January 2005)

The pursuers' personal right to demand assignation of copyright, existing at the time the action was raised, was sufficient to entitle them to raise proceedings for infringement, provided that legal title is completed before decree. The assignation of 10 April 2003 did not itself complete title due to lack of averment regarding transfer from the original author to the partnership, but the pursuers' averments were sufficient to allow proof before answer.

Citation
[2005] ScotCS CSOH_17
Parties
Pursuer: Tayplan Limited; Defender: D & A Contracts
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil / Procedure Roll Debate on Title to Sue
Outcome
Defenders' plea of no title to sue reserved; proof before answer allowed.
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Title to Sue, Assignation of Rights, Accretion, Personal Right Vs Real Right
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Copyright Infringement Title to Sue Assignation of Rights Accretion Personal Right Vs Real Right

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tayplan Limited

Pursuer

D & A Contracts

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Procedure Roll Debate on Title to Sue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers had sufficient title to sue for copyright infringement at the time the action was raised
  2. 2 Whether subsequent assignation or accretion could cure any defect in title to sue

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' personal right to demand assignation of copyright, existing at the time the action was raised, was sufficient to entitle them to raise proceedings for infringement, provided that legal title is completed before decree. The assignation of 10 April 2003 did not itself complete title due to lack of averment regarding transfer from the original author to the partnership, but the pursuers' averments were sufficient to allow proof before answer.

Court Disposition

Defenders' plea of no title to sue reserved; proof before answer allowed.

Orders

  • Proof before answer allowed on the issue of title to sue.