SDL Hair Ltd v Next Row Ltd & Ors
Decision date: 3 July 2014
Neutral citation: [2014] EWHC 2084 (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 was a damages inquiry after certain letters and an email were held to be groundless threats of patent infringement concerning SDL's Ego Boost product. The court had to decide which losses were caused by those threats and how to quantify them. The judge found a substantial lost chance of QVC TSV sales and awarded QVC-related losses of £40,500 against Next Row and RMG (interest also ordered), but rejected claims tied to Alan Howard and other letters/emails and rejected joint liability of Cloud Nine and Gavin Rae for the SDL and QVC Letters.
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 claimed loss is the lost chance of obtaining a third‑party commercial opportunity (here QVC TSV(s)), the Allied Maples approach applies: the claimant must prove a substantial (not merely speculative) chance and damages are quantified by applying the assessed percentage chance to the value of the lost benefit. For causation of production delay where precise foreign manufacturing records are absent, the court may adopt a pragmatic counterfactual timetable (here a six‑week assumption) to quantify delay‑related loss.
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 contains observations that (a) unrealistic supplier delivery estimates given by a claimant's representative can independently undermine third‑party sales prospects and contribute materially to loss, and (b) QVC's later insistence on dealing via a broker was influenced by SDL's pre‑existing financial concerns rather than solely by the threats. These appear as explanatory remarks rather than binding legal rules.