Computer Associates International Inc & Anor v Horvath & Anor

Permission to appeal may be refused where the proposed appeal has no real prospect of success. A party who has been served with proceedings is responsible for arranging attendance at the hearing or representation on their behalf. An adjournment will not assist where the material before the court discloses no viable defence. The court may determine an absent applicant’s permission application on the papers where the applicant has been given notice of the hearing and fails to attend.

Computer Associates International Inc and Computer Associates Plc obtained default judgment and ancillary injunctive relief in the Chancery Division against Rudi Horvath concerning Internet domain names incorporating the words “computer associates”. Ferris J made the order on 4 October 2000. Mr Horvath, although served, had not attended or been represented at that hearing. He applied for permission to appeal, relying on his absence, the refusal of an adjournment, refusal of emergency legal aid and an alleged breach of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He also asserted that he had a viable defence. He did not attend the permission hearing. The central issue was whether the proposed appeal had a real prospect of success.

1. Application determined in the applicant’s absence. Lord Justice Mummery dealt with the application on the papers after Mr Horvath failed to attend despite having been notified of the hearing arrangements.
2. No real prospect of success. The proposed appeal had no real prospect of success. Service of the proceedings placed responsibility on Mr Horvath to arrange his attendance or ensure that someone attended on his behalf.
3. Adjournment and merits. An adjournment would have served no useful purpose because the material before the court disclosed no defence to the claim on which the default order had been made. The alleged inability to attend, lack of representation and refusal of an adjournment therefore did not provide a sufficient basis for permission.
4. Order. The application for permission to appeal was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal from the order of Ferris J dated 4 October 2000 was refused.
• Chancery Division: Ferris J granted judgment in default and made injunctive and ancillary orders concerning the registered trade mark and Internet domain names.