Cinpres Gas Injection Ltd v Melea Ltd

An earlier judgment obtained by perjury does not cease to operate as an estoppel merely because the evidence was false. The perjury must have been committed by the party who benefited from the judgment, or must have been procured or knowingly relied upon by that party. The perjury must also be material to the earlier decision. Where the benefiting party neither procured nor knowingly relied on the perjury, the estoppel remains effective and prevents the court from reopening the underlying entitlement issue.

The claimant sought a declaration under section 37 of the Patents Act 1977 that it was entitled to a patent for gas-assisted injection moulding technology. The patent had previously been awarded to the defendant following Patent Office proceedings in which the claimant had failed to establish that the inventor or a relevant witness had acquired the invention while working for the claimant.

The claimant alleged that the earlier decision had been obtained by perjury from Mr Hendry, and that Mr Ladney had procured or knowingly used that perjury. The Patent Office decision had been reversed by Laddie J but restored by the Court of Appeal. The central issues were whether the earlier decision was materially affected by perjury and, if so, whether the requirements for avoiding the resulting estoppel were satisfied.

1. Material perjury. The court found that Mr Hendry had acquired knowledge of the spillover technology while working for the claimant and had given materially false evidence in the earlier proceedings. His evidence was central to the Patent Office decision. The true facts would have been capable of affecting the result.
2. Applicable test. An earlier judgment obtained by fraud or perjury does not give rise to an effective estoppel where the fraud or perjury was that of the benefiting party, or was procured by, or knowingly relied upon by, that party. The rule was stated in Oddysey Re (London) Ltd v OIC Run-Off Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 71, referring to Boswell v Coaks.
3. No procurement or knowing reliance. The evidence did not establish that Mr Ladney pressured or induced Mr Hendry to give perjured evidence. Nor did it establish that Mr Ladney knew the truth about Mr Hendry’s involvement at the time and knowingly took advantage of the false evidence. The allegations were serious, depended substantially on Mr Hendry’s unreliable evidence, and lacked adequate corroboration.
4. Effect of the earlier decision. Although the earlier decision had been materially affected by perjury, the statutory and common-law requirements for impeaching the resulting estoppel were not met. The earlier decision therefore continued to govern the ownership issue. The claim was dismissed. The extent of any interest in the patent did not require determination.

• Patent Office: In 1996 Dr Ferdinando rejected the claimant’s case on entitlement, finding that it had not established that Mr Hendry knew of the spillover technique while working for it.
• High Court: On 19 November 1996 Laddie J allowed the claimant’s appeal.
• Court of Appeal: On 23 July 1997 the Court of Appeal reversed Laddie J and restored the Patent Office decision.
• High Court (Chancery Division): The present court held that the earlier decision, although affected by material perjury, remained effective because the benefiting party had neither procured nor knowingly relied upon the perjury.