Costs

Summary assessment - judge rejecting total of detailed statement of costs as unreasonably high without looking at individual items detailed and applying own tariff - summary costs jurisdiction not to be used for introducing scale of judicial tariffs for different categories of case 1-800 Flowers Inc v Phonenames Ltd: CA (Peter Gibson, Buxton and Jonathan Parker LJJ):18 May 2001The applicant sought to register in part B of the register the trademark '800-FLOWERS' covering services for receiving and transferring orders for flowers and floral products.P Ltd opposed the application, which fell to be dealt with under the Trade Marks Act 1938.

The Registrar of Trade Marks accepted the application subject to a disclaimer of right to the exclusive, separate use of the numeral '800' and the word 'Flowers'.P Ltd appealed.

The judge allowed the appeal and, having rejected the total of the detailed statement of P Ltd's costs as unreasonably high, assessed its costs at 10,000 by analogy with a case known only to the judge.

The applicant appealed and P Ltd cross-appealed.Geoffrey Hobbs QC and Emma Himsworth (instructed by Lupton Fawcett, Leeds) for the applicant.

Mark Platts-Mills QC and James Abrahams (instructed by Field Fisher Waterhouse) for P Ltd.Held, dismissing the appeal and allowing the cross-appeal, that the jurisdiction to assess costs summarily was not to be used as a vehicle for the introduction of a scale of judicial tariffs for different categories of case; that, however general the approach the court chose to adopt when assessing costs summarily, the assessment must be directed to and focussed on the detailed breakdown of costs contained in the receiving party's statement of costs; and that, accordingly, the court would set aside the summary assessment and direct that a detailed assessment of P Ltd's costs be made.