The Mental Element of Accessory Liability in Tort – Cambridge Law Journal
‘Hornby Street Ltd. (“Hornby”) infringed the registered trademarks of Lifestyle. Hornby was therefore strictly liable in tort ([2017] EWHC 3313 (Ch), [2018] F.S.R. 15). However, Hornby went into administration. Lifestyle therefore sued two directors of Hornby, the Ahmeds, claiming that they were jointly and severally liable with Hornby for the infringements, and sought an account of profits from them. Lifestyle was successful both at first instance ([2020] EWHC 688 (Ch), [2020] F.S.R. 29) and in the Court of Appeal ([2021] EWCA Civ 675, [2021] Bus. L.R. 1020). The Supreme Court rightly allowed the Ahmeds’ appeal: Lifestyle Equities CV v Ahmed [2024] UKSC 17, [2024] 2 W.L.R. 1297. In a compelling and comprehensive judgment, Lord Leggatt held that the Ahmeds could not be primarily liable for the infringement, and nor could they be liable as accessories since there was no finding that they knew of the unlawful infringement of Lifestyle’s rights. This latter point is likely to be of wider importance: the Supreme Court recognised a general principle of accessory liability in private law, and that accessory liability is never strict but depends upon the accessory’s knowledge of the primary wrong.’
Cambridge Law Journal, January 2025
Source: www.cambridge.org
