Wirex Limited v Cryptocarbon Global Limited & Ors.
Decision date: 16 May 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] EWHC 1161 (IPEC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This judgment disposes of applications following a finding of liability for infringement of the CRYPTOBACK trade mark and Wirex's election for an inquiry as to damages. The court refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and refused a stay pending IPO proceedings, declined to allow late acceptance/enforcement of a Part 36 offer, refused relief from sanctions for breach of an unless order, found no basis for an award of moral prejudice, and awarded Wirex capped inquiry costs (£21,900) plus a 25% uplift, court fees (£825) and additional adjournment costs (£3,000).
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
From the materials, the core ratios are: (1) where a claimant wilfully breaches an unless order, the claimant can be entitled to have damages assessed on unchallenged Points of Claim and a defendant’s defences may be struck out or otherwise disfavoured; (2) acceptance of a Part 36 offer while a trial is in progress (before judgment is given or handed down) requires the court’s permission, and such permission may be refused where acceptance is sought as a last-minute tactical step after appeals and delay; and (3) under the IP Enforcement Regulations, an award for moral prejudice requires non-economic loss beyond routine litigation frustration or managerial upset.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The notes record obiter observations that the case law on moral prejudice is sparse and that routine frustration or management burden from litigation does not normally qualify as moral prejudice; also that defendants who pursue tactical delay and then seek late Part 36 acceptance are unlikely to obtain court permission.
Warning
This chunk contains substantial repetition of the same material. Notes contain substantial repetition and are limited to the judge’s on-the-papers decision; they may omit fuller factual or evidential detail present in the full judgment.