Parkes v Cintec International Ltd [2006] ScotCS CSIH_30 (31 May 2006)

Parkes v Cintec International Ltd [2006] ScotCS CSIH_30 (31 May 2006)

The pursuer failed to make averments sufficient to establish any ground of jurisdiction in Scotland under Schedule 4 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. There were no relevant averments of contract or delict connecting the defenders to Scotland, and neither internet publication nor the doctrine of 'first seizure' provided a basis for jurisdiction. The Lord Ordinary's dismissal for want of jurisdiction was correct.

Citation
[2006] ScotCS CSIH_30
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: John Parkes; Defenders and Respondents: Cintec International Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
31 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Appeal Against Interlocutor Dismissing Action for Lack of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; action dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Patent Infringement, Interdict, Groundless Threats, Internet Publication
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Jurisdiction Patent Infringement Interdict Groundless Threats Internet Publication

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Parkes

Pursuer and Reclaimer

Cintec International Ltd

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Appeal Against Interlocutor Dismissing Action for Lack of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Scottish courts have jurisdiction over the defenders for alleged patent infringement and related remedies
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings disclose any basis for jurisdiction under Schedule 4 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to make averments sufficient to establish any ground of jurisdiction in Scotland under Schedule 4 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. There were no relevant averments of contract or delict connecting the defenders to Scotland, and neither internet publication nor the doctrine of 'first seizure' provided a basis for jurisdiction. The Lord Ordinary's dismissal for want of jurisdiction was correct.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; action dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Refusal of reclaiming motion
  • Refusal of leave to amend pleadings