Skip to Main Content

Find Case LawBeta

Judgments and decisions from 2001 onwards

Hughes v Paxman

[2006] EWCA Civ 887

Case No: A3/2005/2472
Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWCA Civ 887
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION (PATENTS COURT)

The Hon Mr Justice Kitchin

CH/2005/APP/0429

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Tuesday 04th July 2006

Before :

THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS

LORD JUSTICE JACOB

and

LORD JUSTICE NEUBERGER

Between :

Derek Hughes

Appellant/

Respondent

- and -

Neil Paxman

Respondent/ Applicant

(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of

Smith Bernal WordWave Limited

190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG

Tel No: 020 7421 4040 Fax No: 020 7831 8838

Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

Iain Purvis and Giles Fernando (instructed by Messrs Walker Morris) for the

Appellant/Respondent

Piers Acland and Ulick Staunton (instructed by Messrs Lupton Fawcett)

for the Respondent/Applicant

Judgment

Lord Justice Jacob (giving the judgment of the court):

1.

Following our main judgment given on 23 June 2006, there are three points in dispute concerning the consequential order.

2.

Mr Hughes seeks an order from this court to the effect that Mr Paxman should serve an amended Statement of Grounds in the Patent Office. It is not the function of this Court to give procedural directions for proceedings in the Patent Office, the matter must be left to the Comptroller.

3.

It is suggested that Mr Paxman, who succeeded both before Kitchin J and this Court, should nonetheless not receive his full costs because the Statement of Grounds sought more than could be granted. We do not think that this minor point is sufficient to justify any reduction in costs.

4.

As to the amount of costs in this Court, we are willing to assess them. The amount claimed in the Court of Appeal is £30,238. We have a statement of costs and a supplemental statement of costs. We think there was a certain amount of unnecessary work indicated and think the appropriate figure is £25,000.

5.

Finally we are asked to give leave to appeal to the House of Lords. We do not think it would be right for this Court to grant such leave.

6.

The parties are asked to liaise over the final form of the order and send it to the Court as soon as is practicable.

Hughes v Paxman

[2006] EWCA Civ 887

Download options

Download this judgment as a PDF (89.7 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.