LAPPET MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED v MR BASIL IBRAHIM RASSAM

In a trade mark infringement claim seeking injunctive relief and, alternatively, an inquiry as to damages or an account of profits, the claim was not a claim for money at the time of issue. The claimant therefore did not have to certify that its value exceeded £100,000 before issuing in the High Court.

Allocation between the High Court and County Court for non-money claims depends on an evaluative assessment, not a mechanical application of the £100,000 threshold. On an application to transfer an intellectual property claim to the IPEC, the court must consider the claim’s value, complexity, likely trial length and, importantly, whether a party can only afford to litigate in the IPEC. The applications were dismissed.

The claimants brought proceedings for alleged infringement of registered trade marks relating to head shawls. The claim sought injunctions and financial relief by way of an inquiry as to damages or, at the claimants’ option, an account of profits.

The defendants applied for a declaration that the claim had not been properly issued in the High Court because the claim form did not state that its value exceeded £100,000 or identify the IPEC as the appropriate specialist list. Alternatively, they sought transfer to the IPEC on the grounds that the claim was of low value and straightforward.

The issues were whether the claim was subject to the £100,000 certification requirement and whether transfer to the IPEC was appropriate.

1. Jurisdiction application dismissed. The requirement in Practice Direction 7A to state that a claim exceeds £100,000 applies to claims for money. The present claim was not a claim for money because the claimants had not elected to pursue an inquiry as to damages and an account of profits is a separate discretionary equitable remedy. The claim was therefore properly issued in the High Court without a value certification or express reference to the IPEC.
2. The High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991, CPR 16.3 and Practice Direction 7A should be read consistently. The hard-edged £100,000 restriction concerns where claims for money may be started. Non-money claims are governed by a more evaluative assessment, including financial value, complexity, the remedies sought and the importance of the outcome.
3. Transfer application dismissed. Transfer to the IPEC required consideration of whether a party could only afford to litigate there and whether the claim was appropriate having regard to value, complexity and estimated trial length. The value of the claim was uncertain and was not a major factor. The issues were relatively narrow and could potentially have been tried in the IPEC, but complexity was finely balanced.
4. The decisive factor was resources. The defendants relied principally on the financial position of the corporate defendant and provided no evidence of the individual defendants’ means. The available evidence, including property ownership and litigation costs incurred, indicated that the individual defendants had reasonable resources and would not be denied access to justice by remaining in the Shorter Trials Scheme.
5. The Jurisdiction Application and Transfer Application were both dismissed. Counsel were directed to liaise on consequential orders or directions.