Font Size

Be careful when issuing a claim


Lawdit Solicitors - Expert Author

Legal Articles
Submit Articles   Back to Articles

15 May 2012

Austerity raises its head at the Supreme Court.

This case highlights the issues before any litigant in person or indeed Solicitors instructed to commence a claim for little value, In essence the Supreme Court agreed with the previous Judge and dismissed an appeal against the previous decision to strike out a claim brought by a litigant in person for infringement of copyright, amongst other things.

Aside from the fact that the claim had a real prospect of success, the Appeal Court agreed with the judge that it would be a disproportionate use of the court's resources to allow a claim which had the potential for the recovery of so little money to be pursued. The claim, which related to unauthorised publication on Youtube for a three-day period of a music video commissioned by, and featuring, the claimant, was for 800,000. However, the judge had assessed the maximum recoverable damages as 50 on the basis that no more than 50 members of the public appeared to have viewed the video, so that any damage to the claimant's reputation and commercial prospects was negligible. The Court of Appeal agreed that the recoverable damages were likely to be extremely modest, even if liability was established.

The Supreme Court was referred to Jameel v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] EWCA Civ 75, which had emphasised how importance it was to ensure"judicial and court resources are appropriately and proportionately used in accordance with the requirements of justice". The court here elaborated that the real question is "whether in any particular case there is a proportionate procedure by which the merits of a claim can be investigated". Only if there is none, would it be right to strike out the case as an abuse of process. In future, judges confronted by an application to strike out a claim because it is not worth enough to justify the use of court resources, should consider whether there is a means by which the claim can be adjudicated without disproportionate expenditure. This might involve transferring it to a more appropriate court or reallocating it to a different track (unless this is precluded by the rules) or both.

Having read the Supreme Court's reasoning I do feel the Claimant has been unfairly treated. If only he would have limited his damages to 5,000 or less and retained this in the Patent County Court. Judge Birss QC would have dealt with this sensibly. This case underlies just how important your prepping is when issuing a claim. Do not issue lightly, weigh up the potential defendant carefully.

Michael Coyle is a Solicitor Advocate and can be contacted at Lawdit Solicitors is a commercial law firm based in Southampton and with an associate office in London.

About the Author

Lawdit Solicitors offer services and advice for litigation, commercial contracts, Intellectual Property and IT legal agreements. We are experts in commercial law with a heavy emphasis on Intellectual Property, Internet and e-commerce law. Lawdit is a member of the International Trademark Association, the Solicitors' Association of Higher Court Advocates and we are the appointed Solicitors to the largest webdesign association in the world, the United Kingdom Website Designers Association.

Follow us @Scopulus_News

Article Published/Sorted/Amended on Scopulus 2012-08-10 09:22:38 in Legal Articles

All Articles

Copyright © 2004-2021 Scopulus Limited. All rights reserved.