Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co., Ltd v. New Lamb Tyre Co., Ltd [1903] ScotLR 40_360 (17 February 1903)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1903/40SLR0360.html
Cite as: [1903] ScotLR 40_360, [1903] SLR 40_360
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session
Page: 360↓
Court of Session Inner House First Division.
[
v.
Facts:
Held that the pursuers in an action for infringement of their patent, who had previously in the High Court of Justice in England obtained a final judgment and a certificate under section 31 of the Patents, Designs, and Trade-Marks Act 1883, were entitled to expenses as between agent and client in terms of that section, although the validity of their patent had not been disputed by the defenders.
By section 31 of the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act 1883 (46 and 47 Vict. cap. 57) it is provided that “In an action for infringement of a patent the Court or a judge may certify that the validity of the patent came in question; and if the Court or judge so certifies, then in any subsequent action for infringement the plaintiff in that action on obtaining a final order or judgment in his favour shall have his full costs, charges, and expenses as between solicitor and client, unless the Court or judge trying the action certifies that he ought not to have the same.”
In an action brought in the High Court of Justice in England at the instance of the Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company, Limited, against Henry Casswell, a certificate of the validity of certain letters patent was granted by Mr Justice Kekewich on 19th February 1886 under and in terms of sec. 31 of the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act 1883. In 1901 the Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company, Limited, brought an action in the Court of Session against the New Lamb Tyre Company, Limited, in which they craved interdict against that company infringing the same letters patent.
The defenders did not dispute the validity of the pursuers' patent, but maintained that there had been no infringement.
Page: 361↓
The Lord Ordinary (
The defenders reclaimed.
The Court adhered.
Counsel for the pursuers moved for expenses as between agent and client since the date of the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor.
The Court granted the motion and inserted in their interlocutor a finding for expenses as between agent and client.
Counsel for the Pursuers and Respondents— Clyde, K.C.— A. O. Deas. Agents— J. & J. A. Hastie, Solicitors.
Counsel for the Defenders and Reclaimers— John Wilson, K.C.— Bartholomew. Agent— William Balfour, S.S.C.