Court of Appeal
Published July 23, 2008
Leofelis SA and Another v Lonsdale Sports Ltd and Others
Before Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Keene and Lord Justice Lloyd
Judgment July 1, 2008

It was appropriate for economy of documentation in appeals for parties to cooperate in making the bundles as convenient as possible, even in ways which the Practice Direction to Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules might not allow.

The Court of Appeal so stated, with the agreement of the Master of the Rolls, when disposing of appeals brought by Lonsdale Sports Ltd, The Trade Mark Licensing Co Ltd and Sports World International Ltd, against a decision on liability by Mr Justice Evans Lombe in the Chancery Division ([2007] EWHC 451(Ch)) in a dispute arising from a trademark licensing agreement made between Leofelis SA and Leeside Srl and the appellants.

Mr George Leggatt, QC and Mr Jasbir Dhillon for the Lonsdale appellants; Mr Kenneth Maclean QC, Mr Michael Fealy and Mr Conall Patton for the Leofelis respondents.

LORD JUSTICE LLOYD, giving the judgment of the court, said that with cooperation and by seeking directions from the court, some of what might be achieved by a revision of the Practice Direction supplementing Part 52 could be put in place for the convenience of the parties and of the court.

In any case where the documentation for the appeals or appeals was likely to be substantial, and especially where several related appeals were to proceed together, it was appropriate for economy of documentation to be agreed, if possible between the parties, and, if necessary, for relevant directions to be sought from the court.

Parties and their representative should consider, in cooperation with each other, whether there were ways to make the bundling of documents as convenient as possible for the advocates in the preparation of the appeal was well as for the court hearing the appeal, even in respects which the present Practice Direction may be thought not to allow.

If such ways could be agreed, a direction by consent could be sought from the court and dealt with by a deputy master, or, if necessary, by a supervising Lord Justice, on paper.

1 Where the documents which would be referred to by each party were in a number of different files, a chronological bundle of the documents numbered consecutively should be agreed, albeit that the documents would need to bear their original file numbering.

2 If collapsing trial files produced sensible numbering and presentation without the addition of further numbering it would be sensible to adopt that process.

3 As the Practice Direction already provided, on a point which it was unlikely would be relaxed, files should not be overfilled. A good working rule was the 300-page maximum for any one file, set out in paragraph 14 of Appendix 6 to the Chancery Guide.

4 Skeleton arguments, when referring to documents, should identify the correct bundle and page number.

Solicitors: Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP; Lawrence Graham LLP.

Times Recommends

• Judges give up wigs in a case of modernisation
• ‘Paraffin mafia’ comes unstuck after €676m fines
• Total 'is ducking blame for fuel blast'