Prospective costs order; term extension - Gowers speaks

How much will it cost? asks Mr Justice Arnold

The IPKat once again thanks Lisa Chiarelli, this time for bringing his attention to the FT’s coverage of the decision by Mr Justice Arnold to require Allen & Overy to declare what its projected costs are in the battle between RIM and Visto.

The decision covers the second case between RIM and Visto. In the first case, A & O racked up over £5m in costs for a five day trial.

Mr Justice Arnold called the current costs system “inadequate and unsatisfactory” and called for a more “proactive” approach to controlling costs.

The IPKat (who would dearly love to see a copy of the decision) says this sounds jolly sensible. It’s fair that the losing party should have to pay costs, but if costs are allowed to spiral out of control then more defendants will be forced to settle, not because they necessarily have a bad case, but rather because of a fear of handing over a blank cheque for costs.

STOP PRESS: the full text of the decision is now available from Bailii here.

Also in the FT

Andrew Gowers’ response to the UK’s volte-face on the copyright term for sound recordings.

Prospective costs order; term extension - Gowers speaks Prospective costs order; term extension - Gowers speaks Reviewed by Anonymous on Monday, December 15, 2008 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.