1999/86 - Veka v TA Picot and Ors [1999] UR 86 (21 May 1999)

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 £1, 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!

the first Defendant/APPELLANT shall within 8 weeks remove the names ‘Veka Windows’ and ‘Vekaplast Windows’ from the business names registry in the Commercial Relations Department, and that the second Defendant/APPELLANT shall not, in Jersey, continue to use the word ‘Vekaplast’ in its advertising, brochures, and promotional material and;

the first, second, and third Defendants/APPELLANTS shall cease to use the names ‘Veka’, ‘Veka Windows’ and ‘Vekaplast Windows’ to describe their products and refrain from any further publication of those names in Jersey, or from passing off or doing anything calculated/intended to lead to the passing off of their goods as those of the Plaintiff/RESPONDENT

Application by the Plaintiff/RESPONDENT, under Rule 12(4) of the Court of Appeal (Civil)(Jersey) Rules, 1964, for an Order that security be given by the Defendants/APPELLANTS for the costs of the appeal.

THE BAILIFF: This is a summons issued by the respondent to this appeal seeking security for costs in the sum of £8,645 as set out in the bill of costs annexed to the summons or in such sum as the Court should see fit. The summons also seeks the fixing of a date by which the payment of any sum ordered to be paid should be paid into Court. Rule 12(4) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) (Jersey) Rules, 1964 provides as follows:

"The court may, in special circumstances, order that such security shall be given for the costs of an appeal as the court thinks just."

The dispute between the parties has been a long running saga the particulars of which are not relevant for these purposes. On 30^th December, 1998, the Royal Court, presided over by Sir Peter Crill, Commissioner, delivered a reasoned judgment ordering the defendants or certain of them to remove the names ‘Veka Windows’, ‘Veka’ and ‘Vekaplast Windows’ from the register of business names and to refrain from using those and other names in the course of their business. The defendants were condemned to pay general damages to be assessed in due course and costs.

The defendants (now the appellants) have applied for leave to appeal against that judgment and leave has been granted by the Royal Court.

Mr. Thacker for the respondent told me that he was seeking security for costs because it was believed that the appellants are insolvent or at least impecunious and rely for financial support upon one Mr. Fay who is apparently a substantial creditor of the companies and a benefactor of the Picot family. The impecuniosity of the appellant companies, or certainly two of them seems to be a matter of public record. In the judgment of the Judicial Greffier in related proceedings between TA Picot (CI) Ltd & Ors -v- Crills (10^th April, 1997) Jersey Unreported, the Judicial Greffier stated:

"Both companies are insolvent, having been effectively financed by a generous benefactor, a Mr. Fay, who appears to have injected a sum of about £400,000 into the companies since 1987."

I have no information before me regarding the third appellant company but it seems likely that that company is in the same position as TA Picot (CI) Ltd and Vekaplast Windows (CI) Ltd.

So far as the position of Mr. Picot personally is concerned, there is nothing before me to suggest either that he is insolvent or that he is impecunious and unable to pay the costs of this litigation. Mr. Picot who represented himself told me that he had not been the subject of any adverse judgment from trade creditors and the like. Mr. Thacker conceded that some bills of costs in this long running saga of litigation awarded against Mr. Picot had been paid, although there are ongoing issues and litigation arising out of the costs of the original action some ten years ago.

Having considered all the matters placed before me I cannot find that there are special circumstances in relation to Mr. Picot which should lead me to order security for costs to be awarded against him. Having reached that conclusion it seems to me, having balanced all the issues, that it is right that no security should be ordered and the application is accordingly dismissed.

Veka AG -v- TA Picot (CI) Ltd & Ors (30^th December, 1998) Jersey Unreported. [1998.257]

Gheewala -v- Compendium Trust Co Ltd & Ors (25^th February, 1999) Jersey Unreported. [1999.040]

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> 1999/86 - Veka v TA Picot and Ors [1999] UR 86 (21 May 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1999/86.html Cite as: [1999] UR 86

Jersey Unreported Judgments