BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> Opes Corporation Oy v Republic Technologies (UK) Ltd [2022] EWHC 2428 (Ch) (19 July 2022)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2022/2428.html
Cite as: [2022] EWHC 2428 (Ch)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

If this Transcript is to be reported or published, there is a requirement to ensure that no reporting restriction will be breached. This is particularly important in relation to any case involving a sexual offence, where the victim is guaranteed lifetime anonymity (Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992), or where an order has been made in relation to a young person.

Neutral Citation Number: [2022] EWHC 2428 (Ch)
Case No: HP-2021-000045

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF
ENGLAND AND WALES
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD)
PATENTS COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
The Rolls Building
7 Rolls Buildings
London, EC4A 1NL
19th July 2022

B e f o r e :

MRS JUSTICE FALK
____________________

Between:
OPES CORPORATION OY
 Claimant

- and –
REPUBLIC TECHNOLOGIES (UK) LIMITED
 Defendant

____________________

Digital Transcription by Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP.
Telephone No: 020 7067 2900. DX 410 LDE
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.martenwalshcherer.com

____________________

MR M KEAY appeared for the Claimant
MR J MOSS appeared for the Defendant
____________________

APPROVED COSTS HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    MRS JUSTICE FALK :

  1. I am afraid that I am going to award costs against the Defendant. I do not think that the Defendant has gone about this in the right way. The Defendant provisionally agreed the search terms. It was wrong for it to make a unilateral decision to do only the searches it chose to do, once its initial searches had produced what in its view were too many documents.

  2. The Defendant told the Claimant that it was going to apply to the Court. It did not do so. I have been referred to the guidance of Marcus Smith J in Agents' Mutual v Gascoigne Halman Ltd [2019] EWHC 3104 (Ch) at [15]. That guidance is apposite here. The Defendant should not have just unilaterally have gone ahead with its proposal.

  3. In particular, the Defendant had the documents and could readily have suggested exclusionary terms. It could also readily have proposed a first pass review (at least) by a much more junior member of staff, and should have done so.

  4. So, exceptionally, I do not consider that the order should be costs in the case on this occasion. Rather, the Claimant should get their costs.

    5. -----------------

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2022/2428.html