Abbott & Anor v Design & Display Ltd & Anor
Decision date: 22 November 2017
Neutral citation: [2017] EWHC 2975 (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 resolves post-account disputes between Abbott and Design & Display about which overheads may be deducted from profits attributable to infringing slatted display panels. The court allowed Design & Display to apportion and deduct parts of wages/salaries, related employer NICs and hired/recharged labour as overheads, but rejected deductions for directors' NICs and dividends absent evidence of market-rate remuneration. Design & Display was treated as the successful party on profits and costs; Abbott must pay Design & Display's costs subject to IPEC caps and make a £20,000 interim payment on account of appeal costs, while permission to appeal on the wages/overheads point was refused.
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 defendant bears the evidential burden to justify treating payments as overheads rather than directly attributable costs; where practical realities show staff duties support both infringing and non-infringing activities, apportionment of wages as general overheads is permissible, and related employer NICs and hired/recharged labour may be deducted accordingly. Payments to directors (and associated NICs or dividends) are not deductible without evidence that remuneration reflected market-rate payment for the contribution to the business.
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 indicates that "overheads" is a practical, not pedantic, concept and that administrative or shared tasks (e.g. invoicing, warehouse work) can properly be treated as overheads. It also remarks that poor or inconsistent disclosure by a defendant can affect costs outcomes where it has caused the claimant wasted expenditure.