Link Up Mitaka Ltd (t/a Thebigword) v Language Empire Ltd & Anor

Decision date: 17 October 2018

Neutral citation: [2018] EWHC 2728 (IPEC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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 Claimant who obtained default judgment for trade mark infringement and passing off after two Defendants ran websites diverting customers. The court found the Defendants engaged in dishonest and obfuscatory conduct at disclosure and during the damages inquiry, and held that this conduct amounted to an abuse of the court's process. As a result CPR 45.30(2)(a) was engaged, the IPEC scale costs scheme was disapplied and indemnity costs were awarded and summary‑assessed (total £99,706.98 including interest).

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 conduct amounts to an abuse of the court's process, CPR 45.30(2)(a) operates to disapply the IPEC scale costs scheme; dishonesty and deliberate obfuscation in disclosure and in quantifying loss can justify treating conduct as an abuse of process, warranting disapplication of capped costs and an award of indemnity costs.

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 court distinguished the statutory disapplication under r.45.30(2)(a) from the court's broader discretionary power under CPR 44.2 to lift costs caps, observing that the latter should be exercised only in truly exceptional cases; the judgment also commented on the narrow scope of exceptions to r.45.30(2) while emphasising the separate existence of Part 44 discretion.

Warning

- none