Lufthansa Technik AG v Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems & Ors
[2023] EWCA Civ 1306
Lufthansa Technik AG v Panasonic Avionics Corporation & Ors
1 November 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 1273
Court of Appeal
Panasonic messed up some numbers in a court document, making Lufthansa choose the wrong way to get paid. The higher court said it wasn't a case about breaking rules, but about fairness. So, Lufthansa gets a second chance to choose how to get its money, and Panasonic has to pay some of Lufthansa's costs.
Key Facts
- •Lufthansa (claimant) holds a patent for airplane power sockets, which Panasonic (defendant) infringed.
- •A Morgan J order required Panasonic to provide sales revenue and cost information (Island Records order) to allow Lufthansa to choose between damages or profits.
- •Panasonic initially provided information via Varner (not a director), showing substantial profits.
- •Lufthansa elected for an account of profits.
- •Panasonic later provided updated information via Takahashi (a director), significantly reducing profits.
- •Lufthansa challenged the updated information, leading to applications and cross-applications.
- •The High Court judge treated the applications as relief from sanctions under CPR r3.9.
- •The Court of Appeal determined that the applications were not for relief from sanctions but should be decided under the overriding objective (CPR r1.1).
Legal Principles
Relief from sanctions
CPR r3.9
Overriding objective
CPR r1.1
Island Records orders
Island Records v Tring [1996] 1 WLR 1256, Brugger v MedicAid [1996] FSR 362
Consequence of failure to disclose
CPR r31.21
Denton test for relief from sanctions
Denton v TH White Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 906
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The applications were not for relief from sanctions, but should be decided under the overriding objective. Panasonic's significant breach warranted giving Lufthansa a chance to re-elect, balancing the need for efficient litigation with the serious inaccuracy of the initial information.
Paragraph 10 of Morgan J's order extended.
To allow Lufthansa to re-elect based on corrected information.
Lufthansa given 14 days to re-elect.
To ensure a fair outcome given the inaccurate information provided by Panasonic.
Panasonic to pay costs.
For the errors in Mr Varner's statement up to January 2023.