Costs of more than £50,000 could not be awarded in the Patents County Court pursuant to CPR r.45.42(1). Where a patentee had brought an unsuccessful claim for patent infringement against two companies, that constituted a single claim for the purposes of CPR r.45.42(1) and consequently the companies were limited to recovering £50,000 in costs.
Liversidge v (1) Owen Mumford Ltd; (2) Abbott Laboratories  EWPCC 40. Judge Birss QC. Judgment date: 20 September 2012
For the claimants Liversidge
8 New Square’s James Abrahams instructed by Field Fisher Waterhouse partner David Knight
For the first defendant Owen Mumford
11 South Square’s Anna Edwards-Stuart instructed by Manches LLP partner Jim Kinnier Wilson
For the second defendant Abbott Laboratories
8 New Square’s Charlotte May instructed by Herbert Smith partner Sophie Rich
BOS GmbH & Co KG v Cobra UK Automotive Products Division Ltd (In Administration) (Costs).  EWPCC 44. Judge Birss QC. 25 September 2012
A court determined that the correct stage at which any issue-based discount should be applied to the winner’s costs in Patent County Court cases as a result of losing on certain issues at trial was after summary assessment, but prior to the application of the scale limits under CPR PD 45.
Application for order for dissemination of judgment granted; costs determined
For the claimant BOS
Hogarth Chambers’ Peter Colley instructed by Wither & Rogers partner Dave Croston
For the defendant Cobra
3 New Square’s Geoffrey Pritchard instructed by Wragge & Co director Claire O’Brien
Standard rate Goals Soccer Centres Plc v Revenue and Customs Commissioners.
 UKFTT 576 (TC). Judge J Gordon Reid QC; Peter Sheppard. 10 September 2012
A company’s supply of pitch hire services for five-a-side
football and its provision of services in administering small football leagues were separate multiple supplies for VAT purposes rather than a single composite supply. Pitch hire was exempt from VAT as land-related under the Value Added Tax Act 1994 Sch.9 Pt II Group 1 and the league management services were standard rated.
For the appellant Standard rate Goals Soccer Centres Plc
Crown Office Row’s Philippa Whipple QC; KPMG in-house Colette van Zyl
For the respondents HMRC
Pump Court Tax Chambers’ Julian Ghosh QC; Pump Court Tax Chambers’ Jonathan Bremner, instructed directly
AG Quidnet Hounslow LLP v Hounslow LBC.  EWHC 2639 (TCC). Coulson, J. 28 September 2012
TFEU art.56, concerning the freedom to provide services, did not apply to a proposed agreement between a local authority and the owner of a shopping centre which was likely to lead to the development of a site adjoining the centre: the agreement was no more than an agreement to agree the terms of a long lease of the site, and the owner of the shopping centre was not providing services of the type envisaged by art.56.
Judgment for defendant
For the claimant AG Quidnet Hounslow LLP
11KBW’s Nigel Giffin QC; Berwin Leighton Paisner partner Adrian Magnus
For the defendant Hounslow LBC
Monckton Chambers’ Michael Bowsher QC; Monckton Chambers’ Anneliese Blackwood; Osborne Clarke partner Catherine Wolfenden
(1) BY Development Ltd (2) Bouygues (UK) Limited (3) Carlyle Europe Real Estate Partners III LP (4) Cerep III GP v Covent Garden Market Authority.  EWHC 2546 (TCC). Coulson, J. 28 September 2012
In public procurement cases where the issues were concerned with manifest error or unfairness, expert evidence would not generally be admissible or relevant, given the limited nature of the court’s review function, unless there were particular reasons why, on the facts, the cost, time and effort involved in presenting such opinion evidence could be justified.
For the claimants (1) BY Development Ltd (2) Bouygues (UK) Limited (3) Carlyle Europe Real Estate Partners III LP (4) Cerep III GP
Keating Chambers’ Sarah Hannaford QC; Hogan Lovells partner Rupert Sydenham
For the defendant Covent Garden Market Authority
11KBW’s Nigel Giffin QC; 11KBW’s Jason Coppel; Eversheds Bill Gilliam