Interest reipublicae finis sit litigio - Final Whistle in Ultraframe
One of the longest running cases in English intellectual property litigation appears finally to have come to an end. In Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others [2006] EWCA Civ 1133 (08 Aug 2006) the Court of Appeal set out its reasons for refusing permission to appeal Mr Justice Lewison's decision in Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others [2005] EWHC 1638 (Ch) (27 July 2005).
This case, which Lord Justice Jacob described as "a dispute conducted by both sides as if it were a State trial" took over 90 days to hear with a judgment running to 1929 paragraphs covering 487 pages. All this over conservatories.
There were five applications for permission to appeal and save for one over costs upon which there may be further submissions it was refused in each case. Although Lord Justice Jacob warned that the Court's decision had no precedential value it is nevertheless illuminating on the courts approach to the issue of rel prospecvt of success which is also the criterion for summary judgment under CPR Part 24.
This case, which Lord Justice Jacob described as "a dispute conducted by both sides as if it were a State trial" took over 90 days to hear with a judgment running to 1929 paragraphs covering 487 pages. All this over conservatories.
There were five applications for permission to appeal and save for one over costs upon which there may be further submissions it was refused in each case. Although Lord Justice Jacob warned that the Court's decision had no precedential value it is nevertheless illuminating on the courts approach to the issue of rel prospecvt of success which is also the criterion for summary judgment under CPR Part 24.
Comments