Mr Khan v Haq Halal Ltd and Others

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtIntellectual Property Enterprise Court
JudgeDavis-White
Judgment Date02 July 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] EWHC 2735 (IPEC)
Docket NumberCase No: IL-2020-LDS-000001
Date02 July 2020

[2020] EWHC 2735 (IPEC)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS IN LEEDS

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD)

Leeds Combined Court Centre

The Courthouse

1 Oxford Row

Leeds LS1 3BG

Before:

HIS HONOUR JUDGE Davis-White QC (sitting as a High Court Judge)

Case No: IL-2020-LDS-000001

Between:
Mr Khan
Claimant
and
Haq Halal Limited & Ors
Defendants

Ms A Lansbergen-Mills (instructed by Miah Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Defendants

The Claimant did not attend and was not represented

JUDGMENT ON APPLICATION TO ADJOURN

(As Approved)

(Remote hearing)

Davis-White
1

JUDGE I deal now by way of short judgment ex tempore to give my reasons for continuing with this hearing. It is now 11.25 am on 2 July 2020. Yesterday I received an application from the claimant, Mr Khan, seeking, as I recall, an adjournment and in effect indefinite stay, both of the application by him for interim injunctive relief against the defendants and the defendant's cross-application to strike out the claim, among other things.

2

I considered that application yesterday and on that occasion I dismissed the application on the papers, Mr Khan having asked for the matter to be dealt with on the papers. The brief reasons given were that I was unable to tell what his notice of appeal and grounds were because he had not provided the notice to the court, and part of the reason for the stay or postponement that he sought was on the grounds that there was an appeal against my earlier order, which I will come back to.

3

The earlier order in question was an order made at a case management conference in relation to both the applications before me at which a timetable for evidence had been laid down. On that occasion, Mr Khan specifically asked for a particular date, which was a slightly later date than the one I originally suggested, by which he would be ready to file relevant evidence. I acceded to his request and made the order that he provide the evidence by that date. As I understand it, he challenges that and says that it is unfair and wrong. It is a little difficult to understand why, given as has been pointed out to him, that the date was one that he himself asked for and seemed content for the court to order. In any event, it was made clear to him that, if he wished to apply to vary my earlier order, he could do so. No such application has been made. In fact, he did lodge evidence, I think within the timetable laid down, so the point seems slightly academic.

4

The other matter that he specifically raised and was concerned about was that the order restricted him to filing evidence about a cross-undertaking in damages and his ability to meet it. To explain that in brief, Mr Khan was applying, as I have indicated, for interlocutory relief, indeed of a mandatory nature, against at least some of the defendants. I indicated to him that the court usually requires a defendant to give a cross-undertaking in damages and invited him to consider that and consider offering one. He made very clear that he was not prepared to offer any cross-undertaking in damages, apparently on the grounds that he was really without means. I indicated that it was a matter for him as to whether he wished to put in more evidence about either giving or not giving a cross-undertaking and his reasons therefor, without in any way prejudging what the court might...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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