UK case law
Hughes v Paxman
[2006] EWCA CIV 887 · Court of Appeal (Civil Division) · 2006
The verbatim text of this UK judgment. Sourced directly from The National Archives Find Case Law. Not an AI summary, not a paraphrase — every word below is the original ruling, under Crown copyright and the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Full judgment
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.