0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

La Chemise Lacoste SA & ORS v Sketchers USA Ltd, Chancery Division, 24 May 2006

5 June 2006
The issues

Amendment Cost – costs – unreasonable refusal to consent.

The facts

The Applicant wished to amend its Particulars of Claim. Shortly before the Hearing of the Application to amend the Defendant consented. The Application to amend had related to a claim that shoes sold by the Defendant had infringed the Applicant’s design rights. The amendment related to the Applicant’s wish to identify further allegedly infringing products. Consent was sought and not forthcoming. The Defendant in response to the request for consent had indicated that it was withdrawing the offending shoe from sale and suggested mediation or a directions timetable. At the Hearing they argued that they had consented to the amendments or if they had not and their letters were ambiguous that the Applicant should have asked for clarification.

The decision

If the Defendant was consenting clearer words would have been expected. Under the CPR the costs of an amendment that should have been consented to would be laid against the opposing party. Parties in litigation should be sensible about Applications and not unreasonably refuse. The Defendant would pay the Applicant’s costs.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up