Fit Kitchen Limited & Anor. v Scratch Meals Limited & Ors.
Decision date: 26 May 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] EWHC 1525 (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 IPEC judgment records refusals of two claimant applications: Fit Kitchen's request to abandon an account of profits and re-elect for an inquiry as to damages, and its renewed application to strike out the defendants' pleaded allegation of unclean hands. The judge held that an election between alternative remedies is normally final and declined to allow re‑election absent unfairness such as concealment or new evidence, and he refused to strike out the unclean hands defence, leaving it available at quantum. Prior transcript/date errors in an earlier judgment were corrected.
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
An election by a claimant between alternative remedies is ordinarily final; the court will only permit a re‑election where refusing it would be unfair—for example because of new material evidence or concealment—or where the defendant had not given clear prior notice of a relevant defence. Where a defendant has given clear notice of a defence (here, unclean hands), a claimant who elected an account cannot rely on a late change of mind to avoid that defence; the court must balance finality and prejudice in exercising its discretion.
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 discusses authorities (notably Tang Man Sit and Kohler Mira) indicating that context matters in whether conduct amounts to an election and that courts should guard against parties “holding cards behind the back” in IPEC; accepting payments under an order may not constitute an election if there was no true election, and late reliance on unpleaded defences is only permissible in exceptional circumstances after weighing policy considerations. The judge also noted that a claimant’s subjective belief about prior orders or tactical choices is not alone a basis to permit re‑election.