Dyson Appliances Ltd v Hoover Ltd (No 3)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 October 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWHC 500 (Pat) |
| Date | 21 October 2002 |
| Court | Chancery Division (Patents Court) |
CHANCERY DIVISION
Before Mr Justice Jacob
Costs - indemnity - court has discretion to award its settlement excepted payment into court more advantageous than offer made under Part 36 of Civil Procedure Rules
The court had no discretion to award indemnity costs to a claimant who had accepted a payment into court in settlement of its claim which was more advantageous than an offer it had made under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules which the defendant had rejected.
Moreover, in the absence of a hearing to assess the quantum of damages, the court could not properly rule on the reasonableness of the defendant's rejection of the claimant's earlier Part 36 offer.
Mr Justice Jacob so held in the Chancery Division declaring, inter alia, that the claimant, Dyson Appliances Ltd, was entitled only to standard basis costs in relation to an inquiry as to damages following its successful claim for damages for the infringement of its European Patent (UK) No 0042723 against the defendant, Hoover Ltd: see Dyson Appliances Ltd v Hoover LtdUNK ((2001) RPC 473).
The inquiry as to damages had been compromised by Dyson's acceptance by letter dated October 3, 2002 of Hoover's payment into court. Permission to appeal was granted.
Mr David Kitchin, QC and Mr Guy Burkill, QC, for Dyson; Mr Christopher Floyd, QC and Mr Mark Vanhegan for Hoover.
MR JUSTICE JACOB said that the payment-in, of Pounds 4 million, which the claimant had accepted was more advantageous than its own Part 36 offer dated June 21, 2000, of compensation on the basis of a royalty of 6 per cent on sales of the offending product, now known to be worth approximately Pounds 1.57 million.
The claimant therefore contended that, by operation of rule 36.21, it was entitled to its costs of the inquiry as to damages up until the date of its acceptance of the payment-in on the indemnity basis.
The claimant further prayed in aid an article written by a panel of district judges (Law Society Gazette November...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Panduit Corporation v Bank-It Company Ltd
... ... 50 I have come to the conclusion, however, that this is a case, like Dyson Appliances Ltd. v Hoover Ltd. [2001] EWCA Civ 1440 , where the critical factor was "mindset" ... ...
-
F v Security Service and Others
... ... his leading judgment in A1 Rawi -v- Security Service [2012] 1 AC 531 at paragraphs 41 Lord Dyson described a closed procedure as "the very antithesis of PII" ... 16 A ... cases ( Warner -v- Lambert Co -v- Glaxo Laboratories [1975] RPC 354 ; Dyson Ltd -v- Hoover Ltd [2002] EWHC 500 ) and in procurement cases (see Roche Diagnostics Limited -v- The Mid ... ...
-
Nord Anglia Education Incorporated
...(2)Carphone Warehouse Group plc v. Office of Communications, [2009] CAT 37, considered. (3)Dyson Ltd. v. Hoover Ltd. (No. 3), [2002] EWHC 500 (Pat); [2002] R.P.C. 42, considered. (4)McKillen v. Misland (Cyprus) Invs. Ltd., [2012] EWHC 1158 (Ch), dicta of David Richards, J. considered. (5)Sp......
-
Sport Universal SA v Prozone Holdings Ltd
...in trade secrets cases. From the cases of Warner Lambert v Glaxo Laboratories [1975] RPC 354 and Dyson Limited v Hoover Limited [2002] RPC 42, I derive the following short principles relevant to the decision I have to make, and indeed I do not think these principles are in dispute between t......