Luxe World Limited v Touch of Vogue Limited & Anor
Decision date: 30 January 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] EWHC 148 (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
Luxe World sued for actionable threats under the Registered Designs Act and sought an account of profits as alternative relief while pleading the claim value as unknown to pay a reduced court fee. The defendants applied to strike out the account of profits claim and to require Luxe World to state the claim value or pay the full fee. The court held that an account of profits is not available for an actionable threat of registered design proceedings (a non‑proprietary tort), struck out that remedy, and directed Luxe World to state the value of its claim or pay the higher court fee.
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
The ratio is that where a statutory scheme for remedies in respect of actionable threats (here, declaration, injunction and damages under the Registered Designs Act) omits an account of profits, equity will not supply that restitutionary remedy for non‑proprietary causes of action; an account of profits is not available for an actionable threat of registered design proceedings.
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 judgment notes obiter that if an account of profits were sought incidentally at trial where quantum is for the trial judge, disclosure orders might be inappropriate before a court determines whether such relief is legally available. It also refers to Lord Nicholls' formulation (legitimate interest in preventing the defendant's profit‑making activity) as potentially relevant where proprietary rights are engaged, but not as extending the account remedy to non‑proprietary actionable‑threat claims.