Frost & Anor v Cintec International [2004] ScotCS 183 (24 June 2004)

Frost & Anor v Cintec International [2004] ScotCS 183 (24 June 2004)

There were no exceptional circumstances justifying a sist or excusing consignation; sisting would negate the prior order for security for expenses and delay the defenders' jurisdictional plea. The pursuers, though bankrupt, were not legally prohibited from continuing the action during interim trusteeship.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 183
Parties
Pursuer: Martin Frost; Pursuer: John Parkes; Defender: Cintec International Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil (patent Infringement, Interdict, Accounting, Damages) / Interlocutory Motions Regarding Consignation and Sist; Refusal of Motions; Reclaiming Motion Enrolled
Outcome
Motions for leave to reclaim and to sist refused; reclaiming motion enrolled against refusal to sist.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Jurisdiction, Security for Costs, Bankruptcy and Sequestration, Sist (stay) of Proceedings
Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Law Intellectual Property Law Patent Infringement Jurisdiction Security for Costs Bankruptcy and Sequestration Sist (stay) of Proceedings

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

Parties

Martin Frost

Pursuer

John Parkes

Pursuer

Cintec International Ltd

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (patent Infringement, Interdict, Accounting, Damages) / Interlocutory Motions Regarding Consignation and Sist; Refusal of Motions; Reclaiming Motion Enrolled

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers, as bankrupt party litigants, should be required to consign security for expenses
  2. 2 Whether the action should be sisted (stayed) pending appointment of a permanent trustee in sequestration
  3. 3 Whether the pursuers have title and authority to continue the action during interim trusteeship

Ratio Decidendi

There were no exceptional circumstances justifying a sist or excusing consignation; sisting would negate the prior order for security for expenses and delay the defenders' jurisdictional plea. The pursuers, though bankrupt, were not legally prohibited from continuing the action during interim trusteeship.

Court Disposition

Motions for leave to reclaim and to sist refused; reclaiming motion enrolled against refusal to sist.

Orders

  • Refusal of motion for leave to reclaim interlocutor of 11 June 2004 regarding consignation
  • Refusal of motion to sist the action pending appointment of permanent trustee