The Mica Insulator Co., Ltd v. Bruce Peebles & Co., Ltd [1907] ScotLR 674 (13 May 1907)

The Mica Insulator Co., Ltd v. Bruce Peebles & Co., Ltd [1907] ScotLR 674 (13 May 1907)

Where a pursuer abandons a patent infringement action, 'full expenses' means expenses taxed as between party and party, not including preliminary investigations necessary to state defences, unless a formal order for proof has been pronounced. In this case, although no formal order for proof was issued after amendment, the situation was equivalent to one where proof would have been allowed, so defenders are entitled to expenses for precognitions but not for preliminary investigations. Section 29(6) of the Patents Act 1883 does not alter Scottish procedure on expenses.

Citation
[1907] ScotLR 674
Parties
Pursuer: The Mica Insulator Company, Limited; Defender: Bruce Peebles & Company, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 May 1907
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Abandonment, Taxation of Expenses
Outcome
Defenders entitled to expenses taxed as if an order for proof had been pronounced at the time of the interlocutor of 3rd November 1905; no distinction for patent cases; no expenses due to or by either party for this discussion.
Legal Topics
Expenses, Abandonment, Patent Infringement, Taxation of Costs
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Expenses Abandonment Patent Infringement Taxation of Costs

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Mica Insulator Company, Limited

Pursuer

Bruce Peebles & Company, Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Abandonment, Taxation of Expenses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Meaning of 'full expenses' under Judicature Act 1825, sec. 10, upon abandonment
  2. 2 Whether defenders are entitled to expenses for preliminary investigations and precognitions in patent cases where no formal interlocutor allowing proof was pronounced
  3. 3 Interaction between Patents Act 1883, sec. 29(6), and Scottish procedure

Ratio Decidendi

Where a pursuer abandons a patent infringement action, 'full expenses' means expenses taxed as between party and party, not including preliminary investigations necessary to state defences, unless a formal order for proof has been pronounced. In this case, although no formal order for proof was issued after amendment, the situation was equivalent to one where proof would have been allowed, so defenders are entitled to expenses for precognitions but not for preliminary investigations. Section 29(6) of the Patents Act 1883 does not alter Scottish procedure on expenses.

Court Disposition

Defenders entitled to expenses taxed as if an order for proof had been pronounced at the time of the interlocutor of 3rd November 1905; no distinction for patent cases; no expenses due to or by either party for this discussion.

Orders

  • Auditor to tax the account of expenses as if an order for proof had been issued at the time of the interlocutor of 3rd November 1905.
  • No distinction to be made for patent cases in this respect.