关于知识产权 知识产权培训 树立尊重知识产权的风尚 知识产权外联 部门知识产权 知识产权和热点议题 特定领域知识产权 专利和技术信息 商标信息 工业品外观设计信息 地理标志信息 植物品种信息(UPOV) 知识产权法律、条约和判决 知识产权资源 知识产权报告 专利保护 商标保护 工业品外观设计保护 地理标志保护 植物品种保护(UPOV) 知识产权争议解决 知识产权局业务解决方案 知识产权服务缴费 谈判与决策 发展合作 创新支持 公私伙伴关系 人工智能工具和服务 组织简介 与产权组织合作 问责制 专利 商标 工业品外观设计 地理标志 版权 商业秘密 WIPO学院 讲习班和研讨会 知识产权执法 WIPO ALERT 宣传 世界知识产权日 WIPO杂志 案例研究和成功故事 知识产权新闻 产权组织奖 企业 高校 土著人民 司法机构 遗传资源、传统知识和传统文化表现形式 经济学 金融 无形资产 性别平等 全球卫生 气候变化 竞争政策 可持续发展目标 前沿技术 移动应用 体育 旅游 PATENTSCOPE 专利分析 国际专利分类 ARDI - 研究促进创新 ASPI - 专业化专利信息 全球品牌数据库 马德里监视器 Article 6ter Express数据库 尼斯分类 维也纳分类 全球外观设计数据库 国际外观设计公报 Hague Express数据库 洛迦诺分类 Lisbon Express数据库 全球品牌数据库地理标志信息 PLUTO植物品种数据库 GENIE数据库 产权组织管理的条约 WIPO Lex - 知识产权法律、条约和判决 产权组织标准 知识产权统计 WIPO Pearl(术语) 产权组织出版物 国家知识产权概况 产权组织知识中心 产权组织技术趋势 全球创新指数 世界知识产权报告 PCT - 国际专利体系 ePCT 布达佩斯 - 国际微生物保藏体系 马德里 - 国际商标体系 eMadrid 第六条之三(徽章、旗帜、国徽) 海牙 - 国际外观设计体系 eHague 里斯本 - 国际地理标志体系 eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange 调解 仲裁 专家裁决 域名争议 检索和审查集中式接入(CASE) 数字查询服务(DAS) WIPO Pay 产权组织往来账户 产权组织各大会 常设委员会 会议日历 WIPO Webcast 产权组织正式文件 发展议程 技术援助 知识产权培训机构 COVID-19支持 国家知识产权战略 政策和立法咨询 合作枢纽 技术与创新支持中心(TISC) 技术转移 发明人援助计划(IAP) WIPO GREEN 产权组织的PAT-INFORMED 无障碍图书联合会 产权组织服务创作者 WIPO Translate 语音转文字 分类助手 成员国 观察员 总干事 部门活动 驻外办事处 职位空缺 采购 成果和预算 财务报告 监督
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
法律 条约 判决 按管辖区浏览

WIPO Lex

WIPOLEX018-j

返回

Patents County Court of England and Wales [2013]: Henderson v All Around the World Recordings Ltd & Anor [2013] EWPCC 19

This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2023 WIPO IP Judges Forum.

 

Session 7: Simplified or Fast Track Procedures for Certain Intellectual Property Claims

 

Patents County Court of England and Wales [2013]: Henderson v All Around the World Recordings Ltd & Anor [2013] EWPCC 19

 

Date of judgment: March 27, 2013

Issuing authority: Patents County Court of England and Wales

Level of the issuing authority: First Instance

Type of procedure: Judicial (Civin( �/span>

Subject matter: Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights); Enforcement of IP and Related Laws

Plaintiff: Jodie Henderson

Defendant: All Around the World Recordings Limited

Keywords: Performers’ rights, Neighboring rights, Costs cap, Departure from costs cap

 

Basic facts: On February 13, 2013, the Patents County Court (PCC) gave judgment for the claimant in this action, finding that the defendant’s release of a song called Heartbroken was an infringement of the claimant’s performer’s rights ([2013] EWPCC 7).  The present judgment addresses the question of costs, and in particular, the exceptional circumstances under which a costs cap may be departed from. 

 

The debate on costs raised some issues that are of general significance in the Patents County Court.  Amongst other matters, the question of how to handle conditional fee agreement (CFA) success fees and after-the-event (ATE) insurance premiums arose.  Counsel for the claimant argued that CFA success fees and ATE premiums were not covered by the PCC costs cap, while counsel for the defendant argued that they were covered.

 

Further, counsel for the claimant submitted that the Patents County Court has discretion to depart from the costs cap and that the Court should do so in this case because to do otherwise would be a denial of justice.

 

Held: The Patents County Court ordered the defendant to pay the claimant £52,484.25 in costs.

 

The PCC decided to award the claimant her costs of these proceedings subject to three points: the Court (i) awarded the defendant its costs of the misconceived copyright claim, (ii) awarded the defendant half its costs in relation to an application heard in January 2013 (technically three formal applications but treated as a single application), and (iii) made no order for costs in relation to a breach-of-contract claim arising from a record deal for a song called Pozer.  These orders were to be put into effect by applying a set off before application of the stage limits.

 

Relevant holdings in relation to simplified or fast track procedures for certain intellectual property claims: Regarding whether CFA success fees and ATE premiums are covered by the PCC costs cap, the Patents County Court sided with the counsel for the defendant, finding that CFA success fees and ATE premiums are covered by the PCC costs cap.  The Court held that under the definition provided in Rule 43.2(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), “costs” include any insurance premiums and CFA success fees.

 

The submission by claimant’s counsel that the Patents County Court has discretion to depart from the costs cap and that the Court should do so in this case involves two questions, i.e., whether the Court does possess such discretion, and if so, whether it should be exercised presently.

 

The PCC noted that under CPR Rule 44.3, costs—including amount—are within the Court’s discretion.  The exercise of that discretion is strongly conditioned by the special rules about costs in the Patents County Court, but in the judgment of the Court, it has not been excluded entirely by the rules.  The discretion exists, but to exercise it to depart from the cap in anything other than a truly exceptional case would undermine the point of the costs capping system.  The PCC costs rules are intended to favor certainty as opposed to a fully compensatory approach to costs.

 

On the matter of whether the PCC should exercise its discretion to depart from the costs cap in the present case, the Court declined to do so, finding the case to be insufficiently exceptional to justify disapplying the cap, and agreeing with the defense counsel’s submission that a litigant who wishes to recover a reasonable proportion of the totality of their legal costs has a clear option available—to litigate in the High Court. 

 

The Court noted that the point of the Patents County Court is to facilitate access to justice for smaller litigants in intellectual property cases.  Here, the claimant wished to litigate in the Patents County Court to protect herself against the risk of an adverse costs award.  The impact of the PCC cap on the claimant’s actual costs if she won was predictable.  If the claimant had lost, the costs cap would have been strongly relied on.  The claimant was thus able to enforce her intellectual property rights in this case because of the predictability of the costs cap remaining in place.  Given the circumstances of the case, disapplying the costs capping system would create considerable and highly unwelcome uncertainty about costs in the PCC and would weaken access to justice for other litigants.

                                                                                      

Relevant legislation:

The Civil Procedure Rules 1998