Lifestyle Equities CV & Anor v Sportsdirect.Com Retail Ltd & Ors

At a pre-trial review, the court may defer relief on an admitted claim where the scope of the final order depends on an unresolved issue and postponement causes no material prejudice. A party’s undertaking or representation may be recorded to prevent procedural unfairness or surprise at trial. Costs remain a case-management discretion. The court may order costs in the case where the hearing was useful, the parties achieved mixed or compromised outcomes, and no party’s characterisation of success fairly reflects what occurred.

The proceedings concerned alleged infringement of an EU trade mark by the defendants’ dealings in shower gel products, together with a separate clothing claim. The first to fifth defendants indicated that they would no longer defend the gel-products aspect and intended to submit to judgment. The claimants sought immediate relief, including an injunction, delivery up and financial relief, as well as disclosure concerning Island Records.

The court also reviewed the proposed trial timetable and determined the allocation of time for opening submissions, factual cross-examination and expert evidence on Dutch law. The central procedural questions were whether relief on the gel-products claim should be ordered before trial of the clothing claim, and how the costs of the pre-trial review should be dealt with.

1. Trial timetable. The court allowed one day for opening submissions, while leaving the duration open to review by the trial judge. It allowed two days for cross-examination on factual evidence. Cross-examination of the Dutch law experts was limited to half a day because the relevant legal principles were expected largely to be agreed and any questioning should be brief.
2. Gel-products claim. Although the defendants’ letter indicated an intention to submit to judgment, the court deferred making an order. The scope of an injunction concerning the gel products could be affected by the result of the clothing claim. There was no present threat to distribute further gel products, and postponement would not materially prejudice the claimants.
3. The order was to record the representation made on behalf of the first to fifth defendants that no issue concerning the gel-products claim, or gels generally, would be raised at the clothing trial. This protected the claimants against being taken by surprise. An order in respect of the gel-products claim would follow the clothing judgment, whatever its result.
4. Costs. The appropriate order was costs in the case. The hearing had served a useful pre-trial function, and the parties’ positions had resulted in limited access to documents and a compromise on disclosure. The defendants’ assertion that they had succeeded did not fairly characterise the outcome.