Lifestyles Equities C.v and Another v Sportsdirect.com Retail Ltd and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Master Clark |
| Judgment Date | 11 August 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 2092 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HC-2015-003973 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 11 August 2016 |
Master Clark
Case No: HC-2015-003973
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Thomas St Quintin (instructed by Brandsmiths) for the Claimants
Nicholas Saunders (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP) for the Defendants
Judgment Approved
Application
This is my judgment on the defendants' application made by notice dated 17 May 2016 to stay the claims against them until the claimants have paid the appropriate court fee. The only issue in the application is which court fee is the appropriate one. At the CMC on 27 April 2016 the application had not yet been made. I heard oral submissions on this issue; but subsequently decided that I should only determine it if an application was made, which it then was. The parties have agreed that no further hearing is necessary; and that I should determine the application on the basis of the oral submissions at the CMC, and the further written submissions filed by both sides.
Claim and parties
The claim form was issued on 11 September 2015. The claim is for "registered trade mark infringement and/or inducement of breach of contract".
The relief specified as being sought in the brief details of claim is unarguably non-monetary for present purposes, other than paragraph (3) which is
"An Order for payment of all sums due by way of an inquiry as to damages or at the Claimants' option an account of profits"
The part of the claim form dealing with the value of the claim has been completed, so far as relevant, as follows:
"The Claimants are unable at this stage to quantify their damage however they believe it to be substantial. This action includes a substantive Intellectual Property claim and in the normal course will proceed by way of a split trial with liability being dealt with first and then quantum should the Claimants establish liability. If the Claimants succeed on liability, the Claimants undertake to pay the appropriate court fee upon an order of the court directing all due sums to be paid by an inquiry as to damages and the claimant ( sic) electing for such an inquiry (or if appropriate an account of profits save that such an account is thought to be non-money relief and so covered by the fee already paid.)"
The court fee paid by the Claimant is £480. This is the prescribed fee payable for any remedy other than "to recover a sum of money", referred to in the Fees Order (see below) as a "non money claim".
The relief sought in the prayer to the Particulars of Claim expands on that in the claim form and seeks:
"(3) An enquiry as to damages suffered by the Claimants and each of them by reason of the aforesaid acts of inducing WCC to breach the agreement
(4) An enquiry as to damages suffered by the Claimants and each of them by reason of the aforesaid acts of trade mark infringement, alternatively at the Claimants' option, an account of profits accrued to the Defendants or any of them by such acts."
Legal framework
The Court Proceedings Fees Order 2008 (SI2008/1053) ("the Fees Order") governs the fees payable by parties to court proceedings. These are set out in the table at Schedule 1, the relevant provisions of which are:
Number and description of fee | Amount of fee (or manner of calculation) |
1 Starting proceedings (High Court and County Court) | |
1.1 On starting proceedings … to recover a sum of money where the sum claimed: | |
… | |
(i) exceeds £200,000 or is not limited. | £10,000 |
… | |
Fee 1.1 | |
Where the claimant does not identify the value of the claim when starting proceedings to recover a sum of money, the fee payable is the one applicable to a claim where the sum is not limited. | |
… | |
1.5 On starting proceedings for any other remedy …: | |
in the High Court | £480 |
… | |
Fees 1.1 and 1.5 Claims other than recovery of land or goods Where a claim for money is additional to a non money claim (other than a claim for recovery of land or goods) then fee 1.1 is payable in addition to fee 1.5 | |
Where a claim for money is alternative to a non money claim (other than a claim for recovery of land or goods), only fee 1.1 is payable in the High Court |
In Page v Hewetts Solicitors[2013] EWHC 2845 (Ch) Hildyard J had to decide whether a claim for an account was a claim to "recover a sum of money" (para 1.1) or a "non money claim" (para 1.5). The Judge accepted the defendant's submission (and reasoning) that an account was a non money claim. That reasoning is set out at ...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Kieran Corrigan & Company Ltd v Onee Group Ltd
...compensation, and to elect between them following judgment on liability): see Lifestyles Equities v Sportsdirect.com Retail Ltd [2016] EWHC 2092 (Ch). If, following judgment on liability, the Claimant does elect to pursue a money claim, it undertakes to pay the appropriate Court fee for suc......
-
Lappet Manufacturing Company Ltd v Mr Basil Ibrahim Rassam
...the claim as a claim for money (see the judgment of Master Clark Lifestyle Equities C.V. and Anor v. Sportsdirect.com Retail Limited [2016] EWHC 2092 (Ch), in which she adopted that reasoning at 12 A fee of £569 was paid on issue in the High Court. The Claim Form stated as follows, under t......
-
Lappet Manufacturing Company Ltd v Mr Basil Ibrahim Rassam
...the earlier cases of Page v. Hewitts Solicitors [2013] EWHC 2845 and Lifestyle Equities C.C and Anor v. Sportsdirect.com Retail Limited [2016] EWHC 2092 (Ch) were wrongly decided. However, the case before me was argued on the basis that those cases were correctly decided, and no submissions......
-
Shazam Productions Ltd v Only Fools the Dining Experience Ltd
...paragraph 2.1 of PD 7A. This would only become the position when an election for damages was made: Lifestyle Equities v Sportsdirect.com [2016] EWHC 2092 (Ch) Master 14 Competing submissions were made before me at the hearing as to the complexity of the issues and the likely length of the t......