BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[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 >> Ablaise Ltd v Nettec Plc & Anor [2003] EWHC 3123 (Ch) (30 October 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2003/3123.html Cite as: [2003] EWHC 3123 (Ch) |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CHANCERY DIVISION
PATENTS COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
ABLAISE LIMITED |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
NETTEC PLC & Anor. |
Defendants |
____________________
Official Shorthand Writers and Tape Transcribers
Quality House, Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP
Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737
on behalf of the Claimant.
MR. R. MEADE (instructed by DLA) appeared on behalf of the Defendants.
Hearing date: 30th October 2003
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Laddie:
"Further and alternatively, the First and Second defendants have acted in concert in pursuance of a common design in the commissioning of the tort as set out herein and are liable to the Claimant as joint tortfeasors."
"Prior to the disclosure hearin, the below particulars are the best information which the Claimant is presently able to give;
(i) Two of the three principle players of the First Defendant, viz the managing director Thomas Nikolopulos and a finance director Peter Kemkers compromised the sole directors of the Second Defendant.
(ii) The Defendants choose to organise their business such that the corporate distinction to third parties is illusory. They present themselves to the world as Nettec Plc (the trading name of the First Defendant). For example, only the First Defendant (and not the Second Defendant) appears to advertise the provision of the apparatus & methods complained of (although it appears that the same may actually be provided via the Second Defendant).
(iii) In addition, the First Defendant accounts for and relies upon the trading activities of the Second Defendants in the drawing up of its statutory accounts.
(iv) The Second Defendant was (at the time of issuing proceedings) a wholly owned subsidiary of the First Defendant."