Saunders v Wiel
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1892 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Practice - Interrogatories - Action for Penalties -
By s. 58 of the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1883, which prohibits infringements of copyright in registered designs, it is enacted that “Any person who acts in contravention of this section shall be liable for every offence to forfeit a sum not exceeding 50l. to the registered proprietor of the design, who may recover such sum as a simple contract debt by action”:—
Held (affirming the judgment of the Queen's Bench Division), that a sum so forfeited must be taken to be a penalty, and that the plaintiff in an action to recover such a sum is not entitled to interrogate the defendant as to the infringements charged.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Queen's Bench Division (Day and Charles, JJ.) (reported ante, p. 18).
The plaintiffs, who were registered under the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1883, as the proprietors of a certain design, sued the defendant to recover 100l. as penalties under s. 58 of that Act for infringement of their copyright in such design. The plaintiff's, the defendant not opposing, obtained leave to administer interrogatories, and in pursuance of such leave interrogated the defendant as to the commission of the infringements charged. The defendant objected to answer the interrogatories, on the ground that his answers might make him liable to the penalties sought to be recovered. The master disallowed the objection, and made an order that the defendant should answer. On appeal, Denman, J., referred the matter to the Court, who allowed the appeal.F1
The plaintiff appealed.
Gwynne James, (E. Morten, with him), in support of the appeal, relied upon Adams v. BatleyF2, and cited Merrick v. Hundred of OssulstonF3; Earl Spencer v. SwannellF4; Chatterton v. CaveF5; Robinson v. CurreyF6; Jones v. JonesF7; Hobbs v. Hudson.F8
Danckwerts, contrà, was not called on.
LORD ESHER, M.R. The question raised in this appeal is whether the action is brought for a penalty by way of a penalty — that is, by way of punishment, as it was put in the course of the argument. If it is so brought, it is admitted that interrogatories should not be administered to shew that the defendant has made himself liable to that penalty, and that if they are administered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McK v RM
...not by way of compensation to the person injured, but where, as was pointed out by Lord Esher M.R. when commenting inSaunders v. Weil [1892] 2 Q.B. 321 and Adams v. Batley [1887] 18 Q.B. 625, punishment was the object; and where the money to be paid, whether it was called penalty or damage ......
-
Stenor Ltd v Whitesides (Clitheroe) Ltd
...design from one class to another may still be protected, as it was in Walker Hunter & Co. v. Falkirk Iron Coy., 4 R.P.C. 390, and in Saunders v. Wiel 10 R.P.C. 29, and indeed this approach to the subject is more germane to the question of what is or what is not a mechanical device. I am con......
-
McK v M
...S35 DEFAMATION ACT 1961 FORFEITURE ACT 1870 S1 COMMON INFORMERS ACT 1951 (UK) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ACT 1957 S11(7)(B) SAUNDERS V WEIL 1892 2 QB 321 ADAMS V BATLEY 18 QBD 625 Synopsis: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Preliminary issues Proceeds of crime - Whether power to order service out of juris......
- Re Roland Corporation and Roland Corporation (Australia) Pty Ltd v Lorenzo and Sons Pty Ltd