Skip to Main Content
Beta

Help us to improve this service by completing our feedback survey (opens in new tab).

Saint-Gobain Pam SA v Fusion Provida Ltd & Anor

[2005] EWCA Civ 258

A3/2004/2441
Neutral Citation Number: [2005] EWCA Civ 258
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION

PATENTS COURT

( MR JUSTICE PUMFREY )

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London, WC2

Friday, 25th February 2005

B E F O R E:

LORD JUSTICE PETER GIBSON

LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER

LORD JUSTICE JACOB

SAINT-GOBAIN PAM SA

Claimant/Respondent

-v-

(1) FUSION PROVIDA LIMITED

(2) ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED

Defendants/Appellants

(Computer-Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of

Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited

190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG

Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838

Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

MR ROGER WYAND QC and MR JONATHAN HILL (instructed by Messrs Bird & Bird) appeared on behalf of the Appellants

MR ALASTAIR WILSON QC and MR PETER COLLEY (instructed by Messrs Browne Jacobson LLP) appeared on behalf of the Respondent

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT ON COSTS

1. LORD JUSTICE PETER GIBSON: We are now asked to determine a few matters arising out of our judgments.

2. On costs, the only question is whether the successful respondent should receive from the unsuccessful appellants not only the costs of the appeal but also of the respondent's notice. We think that the respondent's notice was a proper one. Although it did not succeed, we do not think that there should be any discount for that. We will therefore award the successful respondent all the costs of the appeal, including of the respondent's notice.

3. We do not think that this is an appropriate case for us to assess the costs in this court summarily.

4. There is no dispute that there should be interest at the judgment rate on the costs in this court. We were asked to make an order for interest on costs of the action before Pumfrey J. We do not think that we should be making any such order. That is a matter to be taken up, if necessary, with the judge.

5. We are asked, but it was not pressed, to grant a certificate of contested validity. The judge made that order. We do not think it appropriate to make any such order in this court.

6. The last matter is whether there should be permission to appeal. We do not think it appropriate that we ourselves should give such permission. That is a matter for the House of Lords to decide themselves.

Saint-Gobain Pam SA v Fusion Provida Ltd & Anor

[2005] EWCA Civ 258

Download options

Download this judgment as a PDF (60.9 KB)

The original format of the judgment as handed down by the court, for printing and downloading.

Download this judgment as XML

The judgment in machine-readable LegalDocML format for developers, data scientists and researchers.