Scomadi Ltd & Anor v R A Engineering Company & Ors
Decision date: 6 November 2017
Neutral citation: [2017] EWHC 3342 (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 case concerned a defendants' application to vary a prior trial order to require corrective publicity after two claimant press releases relating to alleged IP infringement. The judge found the first (30 Oct) press release contained an ambiguity that could suggest infringement but was inadvertent and promptly corrected by a second (2 Nov) release, and the defendants did not prove contempt, abuse of process or malicious falsehood. The court dismissed the defendants' application for the principal publicity and disclosure relief as unnecessary, disproportionate and in parts itself misleading.
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
Where a party's press statement contains an ambiguity that is promptly explained and corrected, that alone will not ordinarily satisfy the high thresholds required to establish contempt, abuse of process or malicious falsehood; a successful application for court-ordered corrective publicity also requires the proposed wording to be accurate and the remedy to be necessary and proportionate.
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 criticises litigants who advance serious allegations (contempt, abuse, malicious falsehood) without setting out clear evidence and particulars, and warns against overbearing or oppressive pursuit of publicity relief which can attract judicial criticism and adverse costs consequences.