Lifestyles Equities C.v and Another v Sportsdirect.com Retail Ltd and Others

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMaster Clark
Judgment Date11 August 2016
Neutral Citation[2016] EWHC 2092 (Ch)
Docket NumberCase No: HC-2015-003973
CourtChancery Division
Date11 August 2016
Between:
(1) Lifestyles Equities C.V.
(2) Lifestyle Licensing B.V. (companies incorporated under the laws of The Netherlands)
Claimants
and
(1) Sportsdirect.com Retail Limited
(2) Sports Direct International Plc
(3) SDI (Brook UK) Limited
(4) SDI (Brook EU) Limited
(5) SDI (Brook ROW) Limited
(6) Republic.com Retail Limited
Defendants

[2016] EWHC 2092 (Ch)

Before:

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

Master Clark

Application

1

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

2

The claim form was issued on 11 September 2015. The claim is for "registered trade mark infringement and/or inducement of breach of contract".

3

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"

4

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.)"

5

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".

6

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

7

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

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Kieran Corrigan & Company Ltd v Onee Group Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 23 March 2023
    ...(it seeks either an account or equitable 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 undertake......
  • Lappet Manufacturing Company Ltd v Mr Basil Ibrahim Rassam
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 13 June 2022
    ...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
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 12 August 2022
    ...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 we......
  • Shazam Productions Ltd v Only Fools the Dining Experience Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 8 December 2020
    ...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 trial. In ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT