Wise Payments Limited (formerly Transferwise Limited) v With Wise Limited & Ors
Decision date: 13 December 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] EWHC 3448 (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 the defendants' application to amend their defence and counterclaim to add a non‑use revocation ground against the claimant’s registered Rectangle Mark. HHJ Hacon dismissed the application because the defendants delayed raising the point after it first became available, the amendment risked overloading a tightly scheduled three‑day trial and no exceptional circumstances or favourable cost/benefit balance justified allowing it. The defendants remain free to bring separate revocation proceedings; the May 2025 trial listing stands.
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 judge held that amendments introducing additional issues after the case management conference will normally require exceptional circumstances under CPR 63.23(2); unexplained delay in seeking amendment, a lack of reasonable diligence, and a real risk of significant prejudice or trial overload justify refusing permission. Where the practical benefit of adding the issue is limited and a separate action is available, the court may refuse amendment on cost/benefit grounds.
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 suggested (obiter) that the court may be more flexible about diligence and prejudice where an amendment is central and would prevent a trial being heard on a false basis; that pleading non‑use could provoke extensive factual inquiry (e.g. reliance on use of variant marks across classes/specifications); and that a defendant who later succeeds in revocation proceedings might apply post‑trial for a stay of any relief, a possibility the court may take into account though it does not determine amendment decisions.
Warning
- The chunk contains substantial duplication of the same passages, but the meaning is clear.