Knaresborough Investments Limited v Styles & Wood Group Limited (in liquidation) & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1356 (Comm)
M L Technology Limited & Anor v B.E.A.T SAM & Ors
8 June 2023
[2023] EWHC 1660 (Ch)
High Court
Two companies are fighting over trademarks and copyrights. One company wants the case stopped, wants the other to pay up front for potential court costs, and wants more time to respond. The judge said no to stopping the case and paying upfront but gave them a bit more time to respond, threatening consequences if they don't.
Key Facts
- •Intellectual property dispute between UK companies (Claimants) and European entities/individuals (Defendants) stemming from a share sale and purchase agreement (SPA).
- •Claimants allege trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement, seeking injunctions and damages.
- •Defendants applied for a case management stay, security for costs, and an extension of time to file their defence.
- •Claimants applied for judgment in default of defence.
- •SPA involved the sale of 90% of shares in the first defendant, with payment in tranches contingent on conditions, including IP transfer.
- •Defendants allegedly ceased payments and used Claimants' IP without authorization.
- •Parallel proceedings exist in Switzerland, initiated by the fifth defendant (a Swiss company) against the shareholders.
- •Claimants' resources are limited, impacting their ability to provide security for costs.
- •Defendants have yet to file a full defence, offering only fragmented explanations.
Legal Principles
Court's power to grant a case management stay.
Section 49(3) Senior Courts Act 1981, CPR 3.1(2)(f), Unwired Planet International Limited v Huawei Technologies (UK) Limited [2020] BLR 2422, Athena Capital Fund v Holy See [2022] 1 WLR 4750
Factors considered when deciding a case management stay (e.g., whether the stay benefits outweigh disadvantages, whether the other proceedings will bind all parties and resolve all issues).
Klöckner Holdings GmbH v. Klöckner Beteiligungs GmbH [2005] EWHC 1453 (Comm), Minister of Finance (Inc v International Petroleum Investment Company [2020] BLR
Court's power to extend time for compliance with requirements.
CPR 15.5, CPR 3.1(2)(a), The Guide Zone Limited [2014] 1 WLR 3278, Jalla & Anor v Shell International Trading & Shipping Co Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1559
Principles for granting security for costs (balancing injustice to claimant vs. defendant, considering claimant's ability to pay, whether defendant's conduct contributed to impecuniosity, and relevance of merits).
Rule 25.12(1), 25.13(1)(a), 25.13(1)(b), 25.13(2)(c), Keary Developments Ltd v Tarmac Construction Ltd [1995] 3 All ER 534, Goldtrail Travel Limited v Onur Air Tasimacilik AS [2017] 1 WLR 30414, Mastermailer Stationery Ltd v Sandison & Ors [2011] EWHC 4304 (Ch), Chernukhin & Ors v Danilina [2018] EWCA Civ 1802
Outcomes
Dismissed the application for a case management stay.
The Swiss proceedings would not bind all parties or resolve all issues, and significant delay would prejudice the claimants, particularly given Mr. Maechel's age and health.
Granted a 28-day extension for filing the defence, with an unless order.
While the defendants' reasons for delay were insufficient, refusing any extension would be disproportionate. The unless order ensures timely compliance.
Dismissed the application for security for costs.
The claimants' inability to pay costs is evident, and the defendants' failure to pay the purchase price contributed to their impecuniosity. Ordering security would stifle the claim.
Dismissed the application for judgment in default of defence.
The extension of time granted renders this application moot.