Mechanical and General Inventions Company and Lehwess v Austin and Austin Motor Company
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | The Lord Chancellor,Lord Blanesburgh,Lord Atkin,Lord Macmillan,Lord Wright |
| Judgment Date | 14 March 1935 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1935] UKHL J0314-1 |
| Date | 14 March 1935 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1935] UKHL J0314-1
Lord Chancellor.
Lord Blanesburgh.
Lord Atkin.
Lord Macmillan.
Lord Wright.
House of Lords
After hearing Counsel, as well on Thursday the 24th, Friday the 25th, Monday the 28th, Tuesday the 29th and Thursday the 31st, days of January last, as on Friday the 1st, Monday the 4th, Tuesday the 5th, Thursday the 7th, Friday the 8th, Monday the 11th and Tuesday the 12th, days of February last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Mechanical and General Inventions Company, Limited, whose registered office is situate at 10, Charles Street, in the County of London, and Edouard Ernest Lehwess who resides at 10, Charles Street aforesaid, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 27th of March 1934, might be reviewed before His Majesty the King, in his Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioner might have such other relief in the premises as to His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, might seem meet (which said Appeal was by an Order of this House, of the 21st day of November last, amended by inserting after the words "Mechanical and General Inventions Company, Limited" the words "(in liquidation),"); as also upon the Petition and Cross Appeal of Sir Herbert Austin, who resides at Lickey Grange, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, and the Austin Motor Company, Limited, whose registered office is situate at Longbridge Works, Northfield, Birmingham, Warwickshire, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely the said Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 27th of March 1934, so far as regards the words "and Judgment entered for the Plaintiffs on the claim against the said Defendants for 40s. without costs", and the words, "and Judgment entered for the Plaintiff without costs", and the words "that each party to this Appeal do pay their own costs of the trial before the Honourable Mr. Justice Hawke", and also the words, "that in respect of the Counter claim each "party do pay their own costs", might be reviewed before His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of Sir Herbert Austin and the Austin Motor Company, Limited, and also upon the printed Case of Mechanical and General Inventions Company, Limited (in liquidation) and Edouard Ernest Lehwess, lodged in the said Original and Cross Appeals; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in these Appeals:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of His Majesty the King assembled, That the said Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 27th day of March 1934, in part complained of in the said Original and Cross Appeals, be, and the same is hereby, Varied, and that on the agreement referred to in Questions 6 and 7 submitted to the jury, Judgment be entered for the Appellants for the sum of thirty-five thousand pounds (£35,000), and that the said Order, except so far as aforesaid, be and the same is hereby, Affirmed; And it is further Ordered that the Respondents in the Original Appeal do pay, or cause to be paid, to the Appellants in the Original Appeal, the costs of action in the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, except so far as the said Costs have been increased by the claim under the alleged agreement to take a licence, and by the claim in respect of the alleged conspiracy and by the claim for special damage, and that the Appellants in the Original Appeal do pay, or cause to be paid, to the Respondents in the Original Appeal the Costs in the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, in respect of the claim under the said alleged agreement and the claim in respect of the said alleged conspiracy and the claim for the said special damage: And it is further Ordered, That the Appellants in the Original Appeal do pay, or cause to be paid, to the Respondents in the Original Appeal, the costs in the Court of Appeal, except so far as the said Costs were increased by the Appeal against the verdict of thirty-five thousand pounds (£35,000) on the agreement referred to in Questions 6 and 7, and that the Respondents in the Original Appeal do pay, or cause to be paid, to the Appellants in the Original Appeal, the Costs of the Appeal in the Court of Appeal, in respect of the Appeal against the said Verdict: And it is further Ordered that the Respondents in the Original Appeal, do pay, or cause to be paid, to the Appellants in the Original Appeal, the costs in respect of the Original Appeal to this House, except in so far as the said Costs have been increased by the Appeal against the said alleged agreement to take a licence, and that the Appellants in the Original Appeal do pay, or cause to be paid, to the Respondents in the Original Appeal, the costs in the Original Appeal to this House in respect of the said alleged agreement: And it is further Ordered, That the said Cross Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House; And it is further Ordered, that the Appellants in the Cross Appeal do pay, or cause to be paid, to the Respondents in the Cross Appeal, the costs in respect of the said Cross Appeal, the amount of all such aforesaid costs incurred in respect of the said Original and Cross Appeals to this House to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
My Lords,
This is an appeal and cross-appeal from an Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal (England) dated the 27th March, 1934, varying the judgment of Mr. Justice Hawke dated 15th November, 1933, after a hearing by him and a special jury.
The Appellants, who were the Plaintiffs in the Court of first instance, are Dr. Edouard Ernest Lehwess, a French subject resident in Paris, and a British Company, Mechanical and General Inventions Company Limited, of which he is a Director. The Respondents, who were Defendants in the Court of first instance, are Sir Herbert Austin and the Austin Motor Company Limited, Sir Herbert being the Chairman of Directors of that Company. A firm of Stephen Watkins, Son & Groves, who are Chartered Patent Agents and who acted for Sir Herbert and the Austin Company were also Defendants in the Court of first instance. The action was for damages for breach of contract and conspiracy. Substantially, the Appellants relied upon two alleged agreements.
The questions raised by this appeal are:—
(a) Whether the Court of Appeal was right in law in setting aside a finding by the jury that there was an agreement between the Appellants and the Respondents the Austin Motor Co., Ltd., giving the Respondent Company an option for a licence under letters patent then being applied for by the Appellants, upon the ground that no jury properly directed could reasonably find that there was any such agreement; and
(b) whether the Court of Appeal was right in law in holding that upon the evidence only nominal damages could result from the breach by the Respondent of another agreement by which certain information, to be communicated by the Appellants to the Respondents, relating to the said application should be used confidentially, that is, only for certain specified purposes, and in setting aside a finding of the jury that the damages resulting from the breach of such agreement were £35,000, and substituting therefor a finding of nominal damages, viz., 40s.
The Appellants were patentees of a system of fitments for motor car bodies of the "sunshine roof" type, having upon the 22nd May, 1928, applied for provisional protection in this country in respect of certain features thereof under number 14956/28. The said system was, known as "the Solcar System". In July, 1928, the Appellant Mr. Lehwess approached the Respondent Sir Herbert Austin giving him certain particulars (including a mémoire descriptif and a sheet of drawings) relating to the Solcar System, with a view to interesting him in its development in this country in connection with Austin motor cars. The Appellants, on 2nd August, 1928, filed at the Patent Office a cognate provisional specification under number 22412/28 and a complete specification with claims covering both provisional specifications. Later in the same day Mr. Lehwess at the invitation of Sir Herbert Austin visited the works of the Respondent Company at Longbridge, Birmingham. The Solcar System was outlined by Mr. Lehwess to Sir Herbert Austin, and the Appellants contended that as a result thereof it was agreed that certain information should be disclosed by the Appellants to the Respondents, and in particular the Patent documents and drawings which had been filed at the Patent Office, upon the terms that such information and documents were to be used confidentially only, and were not to be disclosed to others except for the purpose of deciding whether the Respondents desired to become licensees of the Patent. This alleged agreement has been conveniently called the "confidence agreement".
With regard to the second alleged agreement, Mr. Lehwess and Sir Herbert Austin met on the 3rd September, 1928, and had before them a letter of August 31st. One of the main issues at the trial was whether at this meeting a concluded oral agreement was reached between the parties. The appellants contended that a binding agreement was reached upon the terms set out in the said letter subject to certain alterations as to the time and manner of the giving of notice...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Capitalcorp Securities Sdn Bhd v Ab Malek Beh bin Abdullah
-
Scott v Musial
... ... , the Plaintiff in the action, while riding motor -cycle, was gravely injured as the result of a ... of Appeal consider that the amount of general damages that they would have awarded would have ... (see the speech of Lord Wright in Mechanical and General Inventions Company Limited V. Austin ... ...
-
Bocock v Enfield Rolling Mills Ltd
...is out of all proportion to the facts"; and the authority cited in support is the case of Mechanical and General Inventions Company, Ltd., and Lehwess v. Austin and the Austin Motor Company, Ltd., reported in 1935 Appeal Cases at page 346. Towards the end of the headnote to thatreport I see......
-
Loudon v Ryder
...of exemplary damages. 10 On the question of amount in general, in the case of Mechanical and General Inventions Company, Limited. and Lehwess v. Austin and the Austin Motor Company, Limited. reported in 1935 Appeal Cases at page 346, Lord Wright at page 378, after reciting the words of Lord......
-
Table of Cases
.... . . . . 245–247McNaghten’s Case[1843–60] All ERRep 229 . . 92Mechanical and General Inventions Co. Ltd andLehwes v Austin Motor Co. Ltd [1935] AC 346. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37Miloševic (CaseNo. IT-02–54) . . . . . 103, 118,120,126, 127Mul......
-
Balancing fairness to victims, society and defendants in the cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses: an impossible triangulation?
...Queen (1990) 93 ALR 79, 86 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Toohey and McHugh JJ), quoting Mechanical and General Inventions Co Ltd v Austin [1935] AC 346, 359 (Viscount Sankey LC). See also Ex parte Elsee (1830) Mont 69, 70-2 n (a), citing Ex parte Lloyd (Unreported, Lord Eldon, 5 November 1822)......
-
The Case in Australia for Further Reform to the Cross-Examination and Court Management of Child Witnesses
...the burden that is imposed upon thewitness’: Mechanican and General Inventions Co. Ltd and Lehwess vAustin and the Austin Motor Co. Ltd[1935] AC 346 at 359.134 See Layton, above n. 39 at The reform is not in every case significantly advantageous to the childcomplainant. Although the questio......
-
Bigger fish to fry
...Jones vNational Coal Board [1957] 2 QB 55 per Lord Denning MR.119. Jones, above n. 119 at 65. Similarly, Mechanical, etc. vAustin [1935] AC 346 (HL), at 359–360 describes cross-examinationas a ‘weapon ... for testing’.120. RvJisl above n. 26 at [45].Henderson It is understandable that some ......