Absolute Lofts South West London Ltd v Artisan Home Improvements Ltd & Anor (No. 2)
Decision date: 17 September 2015
Neutral citation: [2015] EWHC 2632 (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 refuses Absolute Lofts’ application to reopen or reconsider the earlier IPEC judgment that had awarded £300 in compensatory damages and £6,000 under the Enforcement Directive. Absolute Lofts sought to admit a missing page of a Shutterstock licence as fresh evidence bearing on replacement-image costs; the court applied the Ladd v Marshall principles (as moderated by Vringo) and concluded Absolute Lofts failed to show reasonable diligence in not having that material at trial, so the reconsideration was dismissed and the original awards stood.
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: medium
An application to reopen a first-instance judgment to admit fresh evidence must satisfy the Ladd v Marshall criteria (reasonable diligence, probable influence on the result, and apparent credibility), applied with appropriate care at first instance; where a party has no reasonable explanation for failing to have relied on evidence at trial, the court will require that the fresh evidence would unarguably and compellingly affect the issues before permitting reconsideration. In this case Absolute Lofts failed the reasonable-diligence limb and so the application failed.
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 observes that even if the Shutterstock licence terms made that licence a less precise guide to replacement-image costs, that alone might not show the defendant could not have procured lawful replacement images for a similar modest sum. The court also notes authorities (eg Vringo) indicating Ladd v Marshall should be applied in an attenuated form at first instance, but that powerful supporting factors are needed where the Ladd factors run against the applicant.
Warning
The chunk contains repeated and duplicated passages; some text is verbatim-repetitive. The provided notes contain repeated and duplicated material; they may be incomplete.