Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No 3) - Viewing document

Catchwords

Jump to page (992 to 1020)

Prepared for Unknown User by ICLR

The Weekly Law Reports

[1969] 3 WLR 991

[CHANCERY DIVISION]

CARL ZEISS STIFTUNG

RAYNER & KEELER LTD. AND OTHERS (No. 3)

[1955 C. No. 4445]

1968 Nov. 29;
Dec. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11;
1969 Feb. 5

Buckley J.

Estoppel — Per rem judicatam — Issue estoppel — Interlocutory summons by defendants to stay proceedings on ground that plaintiff's solicitors acting without authority — House of Lords' decision affirming decision of trial judge that plaintiff's solicitors acted with plaintiff's authority — House of Lords' ruling that summons to stay proceedings must be treated as separate action to which plaintiff not a party — Amendment of statement of claim — Summons by plaintiff seeking to strike out parts of the defences as vexatious and abuse of process as being res judicatae — Decisions of foreign courts on trade mark matters relied upon by plaintiff as creating an estoppel — Other foreign judgments on trade mark matters relied upon by the defendants as creating a “counter-estoppel” — Whether reasoned judgments or merely formal records of previous decisions to be considered for purposes of estoppel — Whether interlocutory judgments capable of creating estoppel per rem judicatam — Whether plaintiff privy to plaintiff's solicitors in the defendants' summons to stay proceedings — Whether decisions of competent foreign courts on trade mark matters capable 992of creating estoppel in United Kingdom — Judge's discretion whether or not to strike out matters which are res judicatae — R.S.C. (Rev. 1965), Ord. 18, r. 19.[1]

Practice — Pleadings — Striking out — Interlocutory summons by defendants to stay proceedings on ground that plaintiff's solicitors acting without authority — House of Lords' decision affirming decision of trial judge that plaintiff's solicitors acted with plaintiff's authority — House of Lords' ruling that summons to stay proceedings must be treated as a separate action to which plaintiff not a party — Amendment of statement of claim — Summons by plaintiff seeking to strike out parts of the defences as vexatious and an abuse of process as being res judicatae — Decisions of foreign courts on trade mark matters relied upon by the plaintiff as creating an estoppel — Other foreign judgments on trade mark matters relied on by defendants as creating “counter-estoppel” — Whether reasoned judgments or merely formal records of previous decisions to be considered for purposes of estoppel — Whether interlocutory judgments capable of creating an estoppel per rem judicatam — Whether plaintiff privy to plaintiff's solicitors in the defendants' summons to stay proceedings — Whether decisions of competent foreign courts on trade mark matters capable of creating an estoppel in this country — Judge's discretion whether or not to strike out matters which are res judicatae — R.S.C., Ord. 18, r. 19.

Practice — Abuse of process — Inherent jurisdiction to prevent — Decision by judge on interlocutory summons by defendants to stay proceedings on ground that plaintiff's solicitors acting without authority on issue wholly collateral to the summons but which he clearly intended to decide once and for all — Decision of House of Lords affirming judge's decision that solicitors acted with plaintiff's authority — Subsequent summons by plaintiff seeking to strike out parts of the defences including issues so decided by judge as vexatious and an abuse of process as being res judicatae — Judge's discretion on subsequent summons whether to strike out such pleas or not — R.S.C., Ord. 18, r. 19.

Conflict of Laws — Foreign judgment — Issue estoppel — Whether decision of competent foreign court on trade mark matters capable of creating estoppel in this country.

Conflict of Laws — Domicile — Change — Whether foreign company can change domicile of own volition — Whether another proper law may be substituted for law of the primary domicile.

Company — Foreign company — Domicile — Whether foreign company can change domicile of own volition — Whether another proper law may be substituted for law of the primary domicile.

This content is available only to subscribers. If you have a subscription to this content, please log in.
If not, you can subscribe online, request a free trial, or contact ICLR by email at enquiries@iclr.co.uk or on +44 (0) 207 242 6471 to discuss further options.
JOHs should sign in via eLIS.