Instance and Others v Denny Bros Printing Ltd and Others (Interim Injunction)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 December 1999 |
| Date | 21 December 1999 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
CHANCERY DIVISION
Before Mr Justice Lloyd
Practice - without-prejudice communications - protection extends to subsequent related litigation
The protection afforded to without-prejudice communications extended to subsequent litigation connected with the same subject matter and was not limited to things relevant to the original dispute nor to statements which in the context of that dispute were against the interests of the maker of that statement.
Mr Justice Lloyd so held in the Chancery Division, allowing the application of the claimants, Mr David John Instance, David John Instance Ltd and Moss Printing Inc, for an interim injunction preventing the defendants, Denny Bros Printing Ltd, Fix-a-Form International Ltd and Fix-a-Form Inc, from making use of certain without-prejudice communications which passed between them in negotiations resolving patent disputes between them and/or companies connected with them between 1991-7 until trial or further order, and which the defendants had intended to use in forthcoming litigation inter partes in Illinois.
Mr Peter Scott, QC and Mr Raymond Cox for the claimants; Mr Antony Watson, QC, for the defendants.
MR JUSTICE LLOYD said that in 1991 and 1992 Mr Instance and David J. Instance Ltd, referred to as "Inprint", started two patent actions against the defendants or companies connected with them which were compromised by a confidential agreement dated October 26, 1993, under which the disputed patents remained in force and licences were granted thereunder to the first defendant and to a connected company, Fix-a-Form International Ltd, although disputes arose as to compliance with the agreement.
On January 31, 1997 the parties entered into a mediation agreement, governed at least by implication by English law, which identified the dispute between the two parties, and contained confidentiality provisions.
When it became clear that the mediation was not going to bear fruit the patent actions were revived.
In June 1999 Inprint set up a wholly owned subsidiary in the USA, Moss Printing Inc, which bought a business which had the benefit of licences in respect of patents and of the trade mark 'Fix-a-Form' from Denny Bros and Fix-a-Form International Ltd.
Despite the defendants' protestations that the law of Illinois prohibited the assignment of such a licence to a competitor of the licensor, Moss Printing commenced proceedings in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krasniqi v Secretary of State for Home Department
...in these courts. Shortly after the decision of this Court in Unilever v Procter & Gamble Mr Justice Lloyd had to consider – in David Instance v Denny Bros Ltd [2000] FSR 869– whether to make an interim order restraining the use of 'without prejudice' material in proceedings in another juris......
-
Christopher James Briggs and Others v Alexander Clay
...They can properly be said to be fully within the ambit of the without prejudice negotiations. 92 In Instance v Denny Bros. Printing Ltd [2000] FSR 869, an issue arose about whether a related company of one of the parties to without prejudice negotiations could refer in other proceedings to ......
-
Autostore Technology as (a company incorporated under the laws of Norway) v OCADO Group Plc
...meeting, the position seems to me clear and to be on all fours with that considered by Lloyd J in Instance v Denny Bros Printing Ltd [2000] FSR 869 (“ Instance v Denny”). That was a strikingly similar case in which there was English patent litigation between Mr Instance and certain Denny co......
-
Oceanbulk Shipping and Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd and Others
...the new agreement even after that agreement has been reached. 24 This seems to have been the view of Lloyd J in the later case of David Instance v Denny Bros [2000] FSR 869 in which there had been a settlement agreement in relation to two patent actions. There was then a dispute whether th......
-
THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE “WITHOUT PREJUDICE” RULE
...written by the plaintiff’s solicitors quoted, ibid, at 286 (para 13 of the judgment). See also David Instance v Denny Bros. Printing Ltd[2000] FSR 869 at 885 (applying Hoffmann’s analysis of the relevance of the intended use of the statements in question.) CfSoon Peng Yam v Maimon bte Ahmad......
-
Confidentiality and Liability
...found in a formal mediation agreement entered into at a later date ( David Instance v Denny Brothers Printing Ltd, Interim Injunction [2000] FSR 869 at p 887). While the point has not been raised in a court, the consensual nature of mediation requires that parties enter it with a degree of ......