![]() Whilst explaining the ratio behind his decision, HHJ Rowland declared that he would not make an ‘order for costs against, on the ground of her impecuniosity’. His Honour Judge Rowland declined to make either order. The second was for the remainder of the costs to be awarded from the central fund, pursuant to Section 17. ![]() The first was for Ms Peters to pay a ‘means-tested contribution’ to the costs pursuant to section 18 of the 1985 Act. ![]() The Claimants remuneration for this work is derived from the awards under section 17 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 rather than from the brand owners concerned.įollowing Ms Peters’ guilty plea and subsequent sentencing, the Claimant applied for two orders for costs. The Claimant is a firm of private investigators who, as part of their work, are granted powers of attorney by brand owners to investigate and prosecute offenders using their trademark. TM Eye Limited (‘the Claimant’) brought a private prosecution against Ms Peters (‘first interested party’), for unauthorised use of a trade mark in relation to goods, contrary to section 92 of the Trade Marks Act 1994. Despite clear ‘Jurisdictional error’ on the part of the Crown Court, the appellant court took the opportunity to warn private prosecutors applications will not be approved ‘on the nod’. Last month, the High Court handed down judgement in R (on the application of T M Eye Ltd) v Southampton Crown Court reinforcing the correct approach to applications for an award from central funds for the costs of a private prosecution.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |