|[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 >> Watchorn v Jupiter Industries Ltd  EWHC 3003 (Ch) (11 July 2014)
Cite as:  EWHC 3003 (Ch),  BPIR 184,  3 Costs LO 337
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT REGISTRY
33 Bull Street
B e f o r e :
IN THE MATTER OF HUSKY GROUP LIMITED
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE INSOLVENCY ACT 1986
|DAVID JOHN WATCHORN|
|(Liquidator of Husky Group Limited - in creditors' voluntary liquidation)||Claimant|
|- and -|
|JUPITER INDUSTRIES LIMITED||Defendant|
Temple Chambers, 3-7 Temple Avenue, London EC4Y 0HP
Tel: 020 7404 7464, Fax: 020 7404 7443
MR DAVID EATON TURNER (instructed by Ashteds Solicitors, Unit 1, Harcourt Way, Leicester, LE19 1WP) appeared for the Defendant.
Crown Copyright ©
"The trademarks had in the main been kept separate from the trading business. This was done for sound commercial reasons to ensure that, if anything happened to the trading entities, then the trademarks would be protected. For many years, the trademarks were held personally by Mr Thomasson away from his businesses. On advice in 2002 they were assigned to Husky Group Ltd.
In November 2008, when it was clear that the marks were now being held by the trading company, they were assigned to our client to maintain the position that existed for the majority of time since 1994.
There is nothing sinister nor is there anything wrong in adopting this strategy which was for very clear business reasons."
" to ensure that if anything happened to the trading entities, then the trademarks would be protected."
"Where the question is retrospective insolvency, the Court has the inestimable benefit of the wisdom of hindsight... By reference to what actually happened, rather than to conflicting experts' opinions as to the implications of balance sheets, the Court's task in assessing insolvency as at the alleged date should not be very difficult."
"To require any person to pay to any other person in respect of benefits received from the debtor, such sums as the court may direct."
[After further argument)
"... unless it considers it unjust to do so, [to] order that the claimant is entitled to an additional amount which shall not exceed £75,000 calculated by applying the prescribed percentage set out below to an amount which is -
(i) where the claim is or includes a money claim, the sum awarded to the claimant by the court; or
(ii) where the claim is only a non-monetary claim, the sum awarded to the claimant by the court in respect of costs."
I should refer to sub-rule (5) as well, which states:
"Where the court awards interest under this rule and also awards interest on the same sum and for the same period under any other power, the total rate of interest may not exceed 10% above base rate."
[After further submissions]