(FORMERLY THE PATENTS COUNTY COURT)
7 Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London
B e f o r e :
|VERTICAL LEISURE LIMITED||Applicant/Claimant|
|- and -|
|(1) POLEPLUS LIMITED|
|(2) MARTIN BOWLEY||Respondent/Defendant|
8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street, London, EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7421 4036 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
Web: www.merrillcorp.com/mls Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR A. WOOD (instructed by Swindell & Pearson Ltd) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Crown Copyright ©
I managed to get back earlier than expected and do not want to delay this any further than is necessary. In principle I agree to sell you the domain SILKii.com and will also be willing to sell you the following domains if you were interested [and then he lists seven further domain names, so in fact he appears to have been offering eight].
I also have two Twitter accounts that appertain to SILKii. Are you willing to put together a package all of the above? I await your reply.
"4. The courts have now given guidance on the principles to be applied in deciding whether or not to give summary judgment. For present purposes I summarise the relevant ones as follows:
i) The court must consider whether the defendant has a 'realistic' as opposed to a "fanciful" prospect of success: Swain v Hillman  2 All ER 91;
ii) A 'realistic' defence is one that carries some degree of conviction. This means a defence that is more than merely arguable: ED & F Man Liquid Products v Patel  EWCA Civ 472 at 
iii) In reaching its conclusion the court must not conduct a 'mini-trial': Swain v Hillman
iv) This does not mean that the court must take at face value and without analysis everything that a defendant says in his statements before the court. In some cases it may be clear that there is no real substance in factual assertions made, particularly if contradicted by contemporaneous documents: ED & F Man Liquid Products v Patel at 
v) However, in reaching its conclusion the court must take into account not only the evidence actually placed before it on the application for summary judgment, but also the evidence that can reasonably be expected to be available at trial: Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond (No 5)  EWCA Civ 550;
vi) Although a case may turn out at trial not to be really complicated, it does not follow that it should be decided without the fuller investigation into the facts at trial than is possible or permissible on summary judgment. Thus the court should hesitate about making a final decision without a trial, even where there is no obvious conflict of fact at the time of the application, where reasonable grounds exist for believing that a fuller investigation into the facts of the case would add to or alter the evidence available to a trial judge and so affect the outcome of the case: Doncaster Pharmaceuticals Group Ltd v Bolton Pharmaceutical Co 100 Ltd  FSR 63;
vii) Although there is no longer an absolute bar on obtaining summary judgment when fraud is alleged, the fact that a claim is based on fraud is a relevant factor. The risk of a finding of dishonesty may itself provide a compelling reason for allowing a case to proceed to trial, even where the case looks strong on the papers: Wrexham Association Football Club Ltd v Crucialmove Ltd  EWCA Civ 237 at ."