![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> UPL Europe Ltd & Anor v Agchemaccess Chemicals Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 2889 (Ch) (17 November 2016) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2016/2889.html Cite as: [2016] EWHC 2889 (Ch) |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
CHANCERY DIVISION
London EC4A 1NL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
(1) UPL EUROPE LIMITED (2) UPL DEUTCSCHLAND GMBH |
Claimants |
|
- and - |
||
(1) AGCHEMACCESS CHEMICALS LIMITED (2) GROSVENOR CHEMICALS LIMITED (3) MR NICHOLAS GOOCH |
Defendants |
____________________
Aidan
Casey
QC (instructed by Isadore Goldman) for the First and Third Defendants
Guy Tritton (instructed by Gordon Dadds) for the Second, Fourth and Fifth Defendants
Hearing dates: 26th October 2016
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Chief Master Marsh:
"Your detailed proposals regarding the parties' chemical expert evidence including the precise products your clients intend to test, the method by which they will be tested, and what they will be tested for."
Claimants
They say the application was necessary, they were successful and it was unreasonably contested. They seek an order for costs.
First and Third Defendants
They say that the claimants have not obtained any of the relief they sought, if there is fault in the lead up to the issue of the application it lies with both parties because the claimants took an unduly aggressive stance and the hearing, in the event, was in the nature of a case management hearing. They say the right order is either no order for costs or costs in case.