NIPC Law

Tipstaff By Simon Speed - Originally uploaded through the Britain Loves Wikipedia website. Public Domain,  h ttps://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=10585201   Jane Lambert Chancery Division (HH Judge Paul Matthews)  Bargain Busting Ltd v Shenzhen SKE Technology Co Ltd and others [2026] EWHC 933 (Ch) (23 April 2026) These were applications by Shenzgen SKE Technology Limited ("SST") and their trade mark attorneys to strike out an application by Bargain Busting Ltd. ("BBL") to commit them to prison for contempt of court.  There was also a cross-application from BBL to add another of SST's trade mark attorneys as an additional respondent to the contempt proceedings. Alleged Contempt The alleged contempt was "Criminal contempt (intentional interference with the administration of justice) by seeking to prevent or delay the registration of a trademark as directed by the High Court." BBL had applied to register CRYSTAL BAR as a UK trade mark.  SST opp...

Royal Courts of Justice Photo Michael Reeve Creative Commons Licence Jane Lambert Perry v F H Brundle and Others [2017] EWHC 678 (IPEC) (30 March 2017) Para 1 of the Part 3C Practice Direction, which is made pursuant to CPR 3.11 , enables the court to make a range of orders known as "civil restraint orders" against a party which has issued claims or made applications that are totally without merit. Each of those orders restricts access to the courts. They are known respectively as: a limited civil restraint order ; an extended civil restraint order ; and a general civil restraint order . I discussed the jurisdiction to make those orders in Civil Restraint Orders in IPEC - Perry v Brundle   12 Oct 2015. Readers will see that the most restrictive of those orders is the general civil restraint order which restrains the person against whom it is made from issuing any claim or making any application in the High Court or the County Court...