The current Tune Group’s Team Lotus Vs Proton-owned Lotus in the ‘race’ for the ‘Team Lotus’ positioning has gone into a twist. On Monday, High Court in England decided that the hearing shall continue.
Yahoo sports reported this:
Fernandes ‘happy’ with initial Lotus court ruling
The Malaysian insisted that ‘the good do always eventually win’ after being told that a resolution would be reached before the F1 season gets into full swing, having previously faced the prospect of having to wait almost until its conclusion to get the unwanted distraction out of the way. High Court judge Justice Peter Smith announced on Monday [24 January] that the matter would be brought to a head on 21 March, although he urged both sides to try to and find an amicable solution well before then.
The two sides – who are on course to both field Lotus-Renaults in the 2011 F1 campaign – appeared at the High Court in London as Group Lotus’ new CEO Dany Bahar sought a summary judgement against Fernandes’ Team Lotus in an effort to prevent the case from going to full trial, but that request was rejected by the judge, who also decreed that allowing the situation – which looks likely to cast an embarrassing shadow over F1 until resolved – to rumble on until November would be pointless and potentially damaging. The subsequently-agreed March date comes between the season-opening Bahrain GP and round two of the season in Australia.
“Very very happy over the judgment today,” Fernandes wrote on his Twitter feed, “And extremely happy that full trial brought forward to 21 March.The good do always eventually win.”
The Malaysian, who brought the Lotus name back to F1 in 2010 as one of three expansion teams added to the grid alongside Virgin Racing and HRT, had hoped to run as Lotus Racing for at least five years, the length of the licence granted by Proton-owned Group Lotus. However, after a solid campaign, he was angered by the latter’s decision to rescind the licence in order to itself enter the top flight, agreeing a tie-up with the Renault F1 team, which will now run as Lotus Renault from 2011.
Fernandes contends that Group Lotus illegally terminated the branding licence granted to his 1Malaysia Racing Team operation, but faces an additional showdown with the Malaysian manufacturer after snapping up the Team Lotus name – under which the original Lotus team ran – from businessman David Hunt, the younger brother of 1976 world champion James, who acquired the rights to use it before the team’s demise in 1994. Proton, meanwhile, argues that the rights were never Hunt’s to sell in the first place, despite the Englishman claiming that he had previously offered them to the Malaysians.
“Today’s case is Group [Lotus’] desperate attempt to use their one-way unlawful termination of license agreement of Lotus Racing,” Fernandes claimed in a separate post, “Saying One Malaysia can’t use Lotus. Part of post-termination clauses. So nothing changes on Team Lotus.”
He also accepted that the on-going row was not exactly clear for many fans, with both sides having sought legal proceedings for different reasons.
“Many confused about case today,” he continued, “It’s not about Team Lotus name, who owns it, which is in November. We brought that case to prove once and for all.”
Fernandes’ team, meanwhile, is pushing on with its construction programme ahead of the first pre-season test next month. Chief technical officer Mike Gascoyne, another prolific Twitter user, used his personal feed to report that the team’s first car was gradually edging towards completion.
********************
Fernandes’s isn’t entirely accurate. This is strongly believed to be the Tune Group CEO’s statement, extracted from the F1 Times dated Monday 24 January 2011:
“Team Lotus is delighted that we were successful at the Summary Judgment Application hearing today and that the Jusge threw out Group Lotus’ application even before hearing the arguments of the barristers on either side.
Although this decision was never in doubt, it means that we start the 2011 season under the Team Lotus name. Whilst we expected that the Judge would refuse this application, it is good to have the decision in black and white.
The Judge also felt that it was in everyone’s best interests to bring the hearing date for the full trial forward and that is now fixed for 21st March rather than us having to wait until Autumn 2011 or even later. We remain confident that we will succeed at the full trial ans we can now focus on the challenges ahead in the 2011 FIA Formula One World Championship.”
*****************
The High Court Judge never threw the Group Lotus’s application out. In fact, the High court Judge asked for a ‘mediation’ and “team of lawyers that they should think about settlement before they spend 10 days in court “.
Excerpts from what the High court Judge said:
“If you ever reach that stage. The only other thing is that dreadful word “mediation”. Is there any prospect of a mediated settlement in this case? I would suspect that the only possible time for mediation is after you have had your disclosure and exchange of witness statements. My experience is mediation does not take place when everything is still inchoate. Maybe I do not need to say to such an experienced team of lawyers that they should think about settlement before they spend 10 days in court”
It is very manipulative for Fernandes to suggest otherwise. How could he be sub-judice on what the High Court Judge will decide. Then again, he is known to use some degree of virtuoso of deceit t as his ways of getting things done.
If Malaysians are confused about the case, then probably Malaysians should read the transcript of the legal proceeding in the London High Court on Monday and make their own conclusions.
It is posted here verbatim for the public consumption of the Malaysian bloggosphere:
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. HC 10 C03151
CHANCERY DIVISION.
2 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
3 Royal Courts of Justice,
4 Monday, 24th January 2011
5 Before:
6 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH
7 ————–
8 B E T W E E N:
9 GROUP LOTUS PLC
Claimant
10
-and-
11
12 (1) 1MALAYSIA RACING TEAM SDN BHD
(2) TEAM LOTUS VENTURES LIMITED
13 (3) TUNE GROUP SDN BHD
(4) ANTHONY FRANCIS FERNANDES
14 (5) 1MALAYSIA RACING TEAM (UK) LIMITED
Defendants
15
———————-
16
Computer-aided transcript by: Marten Walsh Cherer Limited,
17 1st Floor, 6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP.
Telephone: 020 7067 2900 email: info@martenwalshcherer.com
18
———————
19
MR. MICHAEL SILVERLEAF QC and MR. BRIAN KENNELLY (instructed by
20 SNR Denton UK LLP) appeared for the Claimant.
21 MR. GUY MORPUSS QC and MS. PATRICIA EDWARDS (instructed by
MacFarlanes LLP) appeared for the 1st Defendant.
22
———————
23
PROCEEDINGS — DAY ONE
24
———————
25
1
2 MR. SILVERLEAF: May it please you, my Lord. In this matter I
3 appear with my learned friend Mr. Kennelly for the claimant
4 and my learned friends Mr. Morpuss and Ms. Edwards appear for
5 the defendants.
6 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: Do you appear for all the defendants
7 today or are you just doing one?
8 MR. MORPUSS: Only 1MRT and that is the only defendant to this
9 application, although MacFarlanes and I and my learned junior
10 do represent the other defendants as well.
11 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: Yes.
12 MR. SILVERLEAF: My Lord, this application today before the court
13 is for summary judgment on a single isolated issue arising
14 under the trade mark licence granted by Group Lotus to
15 1Malaysia Racing (whom I will call “1MRT” for short, if I may)
16 in 2009 to race in Formula One under the name LOTUS RACING.
17 Your Lordship has had a rather voluminous set of
18 papers —-
19 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: But no reading list.
20 MR. SILVERLEAF: I am very sorry, my Lord. Have you had the
21 opportunity to read at least the skeleton arguments?
22 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: I have read the skeleton arguments, I
23 have read the pleadings and I have glanced at the witness
24 statements and I have read most of the historical agreements
25 and the 2009 —-
1
1
2 MR. SILVERLEAF: I am very grateful, my Lord. That should speed
3 things up enormously.
4 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: I think things could be sped up
5 enormously another way. When are you proposing to have the
6 trial of the rest of the action?
7 MR. SILVERLEAF: We have, I think, been given a trial window of
8 early next year.
9 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: How long do you estimate the trial?
10 MR. SILVERLEAF: I think it is 10 days, my Lord. There are two
11 problems. One is, obviously the 2011 racing season is about
12 to start.
13 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: It starts in Bahrain, 17th March?
14 MR. SILVERLEAF: The middle of March, yes. The other is that I
15 think the parties are agreed we need to ask the court to
16 expedite the full trial in any event so that it takes place
17 before the 2012 season.
18 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: No. I think we should expedite it so
19 that it starts before the 2011 season. I think we should have
20 a speedy trial of the whole action before, certainly, the end
21 of March. I think we should set a timetable to hear the whole
22 action then. There are no resource issues in this case, given
23 the schedules of costs that have been provided to me. Let us
24 get it all sorted in one go.
25 MR. SILVERLEAF: My Lord, obviously I will have to take
2
1
2 instructions on that. I suspect my learned friend will as
3 well.
4 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: We have had the pleadings. There has
5 not been a reply and defence to the counterclaim yet, has
6 there?
7 MR. SILVERLEAF: The pleadings are closed. I believe there is
8 still outstanding a request for further information from us to
9 the defendants which has not been answered. Apart from that,
10 I suspect the pleadings are terminated.
11 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: I think both ought to take instructions.
12 I am sure we can get this trial on. I have already made
13 inquiries of the Listing Officer and we can get a 10 day trial
14 on this term. It is a shame you did not apply for this back
15 in front of Briggs J in November, but the parties can do it,
16 so far as I can see. There are no resource issues — just for
17 lots of people. That is it.
18 MR. SILVERLEAF: My Lord, in that case —-
19 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: I will rise if you like and you can
20 both —-
21 MR. SILVERLEAF: I do not think I can take instructions without
22 your Lordship rising.
23 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: No. It is best I do not hear what you
24 say — good or bad.
25 MR. SILVERLEAF: Indeed, my Lord. Can we have 10 minutes?
3
1
2 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: Have as long as you like.
3 (A short adjournment)
4 MR. SILVERLEAF: My Lord, thank you very much for the opportunity
5 to take instructions. Our position is that it is a tough call
6 to do a trial that quickly but we think we can do it and if
7 your Lordship wishes to direct a speedy trial we would be
8 delighted. Obviously, we would like to dispose of this
9 dispute before the season begins and, frankly, if we can
10 dispose of it early in the season that is almost as good. I
11 have to tell your Lordship that the only reason we did not ask
12 for a speedy trial at the outset is that we did not think the
13 other side would agree. I wait to hear what my learned friend
14 says.
15 MR. MORPUSS: My Lord, much as we would like to see this resolved,
16 with the best will in the world we do not see that it is going
17 to be capable of being resolved by March or even the end of
18 March as a trial.
19 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: Why not?
20 MR. MORPUSS: It is all very well, my Lord, to just throw
21 resources at a case, and your Lordship is right that there are
22 plenty of solicitors and there are plenty of funds on both
23 sides. But we have all seen cases where solicitors simply
24 throw trainees and resources at cases. Unless those are well
25 managed and well directed what one ends up with is people
4
1
2 simply running round like headless chickens and it does not
3 get one anywhere.
4 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: That is a matter of getting resources
5 sorted out.
6 MR. MORPUSS: It is, my Lord, but simply saying there are endless
7 resources is not the answer. The question is what we can
8 actually achieve in six to eight weeks. The concern —-
9 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: You ought to look at my decision in Re
10 Crowson Fabrics where I directed a trial on the Friday to
11 start on the following Wednesday.
12 MR. MORPUSS: Yes, but of course —-
13 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: And it did. That was a lot shorter than
14 this, obviously, but I see no reason why this cannot be put in
15 in six weeks.
16 MR. MORPUSS: That is what I was going to say to your Lordship.
17 Of course, it depends very much on the case. There are a
18 couple of concerns that we have. One is that this application
19 was made on 20th October last year. If we had been approached
20 then for an expedited trial it could have been approached with
21 a view to seeing whether we could get it on in February or
22 March before the season started — an expedited trial properly
23 arranged and managed.
24 It is the claimant who chose to make this application
25 for summary judgment which we submit, if we get to it, is a
5
1
2 hopeless application and the only way of resolving this is a
3 trial. Because of their application everyone has been focused
4 for the last few months on that. As far as the other four
5 defendants go that I act for, we have not been focusing at all
6 on the rest of the case beyond pleading out the issues in the
7 pleadings. It has all been focused on dealing with this and
8 we have not been off exploring the evidence that we need to
9 produce.
10 My learned friends have turned up with Mr. Monk, the
11 Group Lotus employee from 1978. He criticises my side for not
12 having an equivalent. We have approached some other witnesses
13 may be able to call but we are at a very early stage in those
14 inquiries. We can get on with those but trying to do it in a
15 matter of weeks is going to be pretty difficult, my Lord.
16 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: The history is very interesting but the
17 history involves examining the chains of devolution of the
18 various marks through various companies and through various
19 agreements, does it not? That is the primary issue as to
20 whether or not the defendants have an independent right to use
21 TEAM LOTUS, is it not?
22 MR. MORPUSS: There are two limbs to it, my Lord. Your Lordship
23 has rightly identified one of them, which is whether the chain
24 of agreements passes through Mr. Hunt to my clients. But
25 there is another limb to it which is the one that my learned
6
1
2 friend takes in his skeleton on this application, which is
3 whether the goodwill in TEAM LOTUS and Group Lotus is
4 divisible or indivisible. That is a central question on the
5 historic relationship between the two companies. No one has
6 bottomed that out yet. Your Lordship has looked at the 1985
7 agreement and one of the things that appears in the 1985
8 agreement is a reference to a 1986 agreement. There is some
9 suggestion in the papers that things changed after 1968, in
10 the same agreement, that after 1968 there was a clear
11 separation of the companies.
12 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: Mr. Hunt is still around, presumably, is
13 he not?
14 MR. MORPUSS: I believe so, my Lord, yes.
15 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: And Mr. Hunt has been around during the
16 whole of the period of these operations. You will be able to
17 speak to Mr. Hunt. He has sold his interest in the companies,
18 presumably for some money, and he will, no doubt, co-operate
19 with Mr. Fernandes. Given Mr. Hunt’s stated belief that since
20 1995 he has been trying to get TEAM LOTUS back on to the
21 Formula One front, he would be very keen to see this happen,
22 would he not?
23 MR. MORPUSS: One would have thought so, my Lord, and it is likely
24 he can give some helpful evidence from that period onwards.
25 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: My view with these things is that if we
7
1
2 pick a date and we say the trial will start then and we set a
3 timetable and we police what goes on between now and then —
4 it is no good looking backwards and saying, “But the claimant
5 could have made an application earlier.” That is gone now —
6 if there are any difficulties what I do with cases like this
7 is I police the operation of the order to ensure that it
8 happens.
9 MR. MORPUSS: Of course, my Lord.
10 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: It is very difficult for parties, in my
11 view, to come to court and say, “We have got this big point to
12 be decided before the commitment of the Formula One season”
13 and then, when they are offered a chance to have the case
14 heard, say, “Ah but we want to kick it into the long grass for
15 another year”.
16 MR. MORPUSS: My Lord, it is certainly not our desire to kick it
17 into the long grass but we didn’t come to court saying, “We
18 want to have this resolved”. It is my learned friend’s
19 application for expedition which Briggs J granted. I am not
20 trying to be difficult, but I am simply looking at the
21 practicalities of —-
22 MR. SILVERLEAF: With your consent.
23 MR. MORPUSS: No, without our objection. We did not consent to
24 it, if it matters.
25 But, my Lord, there is also the question of disclosure.
8
1
2 What is going to happen is that there are a lot of documents
3 to come out of Group Lotus. If disclosure is going to be done
4 in a matter of a few weeks, inevitably there will be arguments
5 about what is proportionate to do in the disclosure exercise
6 and, given how important the history is and how important it
7 is to dig out documents where there are not witnesses —-
8 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: I had the same arguments in the Candy
9 Bros. litigation last year when they told me in March they
10 could not possibly meet a trial timetable in May. I rejected
11 that, I set a timetable and the trial was heard in May. Their
12 arguments there were the same point: thousands of pounds of
13 documents hidden away in various places and disclosure cannot
14 take place.
15 My view is that we set a timetable, the parties approach
16 it with their best endeavours and if there are any
17 difficulties then you come back to me on a liberty to apply
18 provision and we will see where we are going. I firmly
19 believe the parties should make an attempt to have this issue
20 resolved before the Formula One season starts this year or has
21 gone too far.
22 MR. MORPUSS: My Lord, could I just pick up on that last point
23 which is getting it resolved before the Formula One season
24 starts. The season, I am told, starts on 11th March in
25 Bahrain and then it moves on to Melbourne at the end of March.
9
1
2 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: And then there is a bit of gap.
3 MR. MORPUSS: On 8th April they are in Malaysia and then, on
4 15th April, in Shanghai. The concern we have is that from
5 early March onwards, when the team have all gone out there,
6 everyone is going to have disappeared and in terms of
7 witnesses that we need from the clients or witnesses from
8 Formula One, they are all out in the Far East for a couple of
9 months.
10 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: The only area where you are likely to
11 have witnesses is over the allegations concerning the 2009
12 agreement as to whether or not it was broken by your clients
13 or not and whether the claimant broke it.
14 MR. MORPUSS: Yes, my Lord.
15 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: Once again, we can always adapt, in the
16 modern world, to the hearing of evidence in the modern world
17 to the hearing of evidence by video link or an appropriate
18 timetabling of the case. I firmly believe that parties have a
19 right, and, of course, have a duty to have their dispute
20 resolved quickly and, given the importance of this case, I
21 think it ought to be heard, if possible, sometime in March.
22 You might lose two. It may slip into April. But the vast
23 bulk, subject, of course, to anybody’s right to appeal (but
24 that is a different story, that is not my concern), of the
25 Formula One 2011 ought to take place with at least a first
10
1
2 instance decision as to the rights between the parties. That,
3 of course, also assumes that the parties do not become
4 sensible in the meantime and negotiate a settlement. Speedy
5 trials concentrate people’s minds in that regard as well.
6 MR. MORPUSS: Of course they do, my Lord. May I add one other
7 point, then, my Lord, which is this. An application of this
8 sort is not going to resolve the use of TEAM LOTUS by my
9 learned friend in the 2011 season. It is not the purpose of
10 this application that his team can use the name TEAM LOTUS.
11 All the entries have been made for the Formula One
12 championships. They are sponsoring the Renault Team who have
13 to use the word “Renault” in their name because that is their
14 chassis name. So even if there is a speedy trial it is not
15 going to result in my learned friend being able to use the
16 name TEAM LOTUS this season.
17 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: Has he got an application to do that?
18 MR. MORPUSS: No. That was my point, my Lord.
19 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: No. The whole point is stopping you
20 using it, is it not?
21 MR. MORPUSS: Yes. That is what they want to do. It is a dog in
22 the manger application. They do not want to use it
23 themselves. They want to stop us using it.
24 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: It is a commercial dispute between two
25 commercial organisations as to their respective rights. This
11
1
2 regularly happens. No doubt there will be the prospect of
3 money changing hands one way or another as leading to an
4 inducement to resolve the dispute. If they have a right to
5 stop you using TEAM LOTUS, they are entitled to seek to
6 exercise it. Equally, if you have a right to use TEAM LOTUS,
7 you should be able to do that free from them.
8 MR. MORPUSS: Yes.
9 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: I am giving both sides an opportunity to
10 have this resolved now rather than later.
11 MR. MORPUSS: My Lord, as I say, we are keen to have it —-
12 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: If you do not have that and it goes off
13 to another year and there is no application by the claimant
14 for interim relief, you will then have, hanging over the 2011
15 season, the question as whether or not your clients,
16 legitimately, are entitled to use TEAM LOTUS. If, at the end
17 of next year, the court determines you were not, then there
18 are going to be all manner of arguments about the relief, is
19 there not?
20 MR. MORPUSS: My Lord, as I said, we are enthusiastic about
21 getting it resolved early.
22 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: Good. I am glad to hear it.
23 MR. MORPUSS: But we would like it to be done in an orderly way
24 and we feel that March is too soon. From our point of view,
25 if we win the trial, we want to stop them, for example, using
12
1
2 the black and gold livery of TEAM LOTUS which they use —-
3 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: Have you claimed that in your
4 counterclaim?
5 MR. MORPUSS: That is something that we need to amend, my Lord,
6 because it has only happened after our last round of pleadings
7 was served. If we get into a discussion about directions,
8 that is a direction I would ask, for leave to amend the
9 defence and counterclaim to bring that claim.
10 My Lord, the reality is that if you order this we will
11 work towards it with the best will in the world but we may be
12 coming back in a few weeks and saying it is just not possible.
13 But, obviously, if your Lordship wants to have a trial in
14 March we will do what we can.
15 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: I will, of course, entertain
16 applications, by either side if they come and tell me, “The
17 timetable is so strict that I cannot fairly present my
18 client’s case”. I will not force a trial if it is going to an
19 injustice in that way, but I do believe the parties ought, at
20 least, to make a serious attempt to have a trial as early as
21 possible in March.
22 MR. MORPUSS: The final point, I would say, my Lord, is we have
23 not been able to take any instructions from the clients and
24 the points I have been putting to your Lordship are simply the
25 considerations that the legal team has come up with. Our
13
1
2 clients are out in the Far East, obviously.
3 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: I understand that. They are all
4 probably safely in bed now.
5 MR. MORPUSS: Yes.
6 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: I would, in any event, give you liberty
7 to apply on 24 hours’ notice back to me on any issue. That is
8 my standard case management direction anyway.
9 Given that, we need a timetable for a speedy trial, do
10 we not?
11 MR. SILVERLEAF: It would appear so, my Lord, yes.
12 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: If we look at March and you want 10
13 days, a start on either the 14th or 21st March would be a good
14 idea, I would have thought. I think it is probably optimistic
15 to say that we can start it for 10 days before that first
16 Formula One in Bahrain.
17 MR. MORPUSS: In the interests of having the extra week, I would
18 go for the 21st, my Lord.
19 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: What do you say, Mr. Silverleaf, 21st
20 start?
21 MR. SILVERLEAF: Would your Lordship just give me one moment.
22 (Counsel took instructions) Yes, my Lord.
23 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: 21st March?
24 MR. SILVERLEAF: 21st March.
25 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: 21st March for 10 days.
14
1
2 Do you want to attempt to agree a timetable between
3 yourselves first?
4 MR. MORPUSS: I think that would be more sensible, my Lord, yes.
5 MR. SILVERLEAF: I am sure we can, my Lord.
6 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: Yes, adding a clause, my standard
7 clause, which is: “Liberty to apply to me at ten o’clock on
8 any day, subject to my availability, for 30 minutes on two
9 business days’ notice or less if urgent on any matter arising
10 out of this order”. I am not suggesting the case comes before
11 me at trial. I suspect it will probably go before a different
12 judge given the IP issues, but there is no reason why I should
13 not at least drive through the case management to trial. That
14 is a very important provision. My experience over the years
15 has been that that stops people taking silly stances because
16 they come in front of me and I shout at them.
17 MR. MORPUSS: I am not sure we have time to take silly stances on
18 this timetable, my Lord, anyway.
19 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: I believe in this timetable but it is
20 when things disappear into correspondence. Do not get
21 involved in correspondence about issues. Come and see me
22 informally on that liberty to apply.
23 Take as long as you need over the directions. I will
24 notify listing that that is the time you are aiming for.
25 (A short adjournment)
15
1
2 MR. SILVERLEAF: My Lord, we have a provisional timetable subject
3 to your Lordship’s approval. Unless you want to, you do not
4 need to write it down. We will prepare one.
5 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: Yes. I am just listening.
6 MR. SILVERLEAF: The defendants should have leave to amend their
7 counterclaim by 28th January. We would have liberty to amend
8 the reply and defence to counterclaim in response by
9 4th February. Disclosure on the 14th. Inspection on the
10 16th. Witness statements on 7th March. Trial on the 21st.
11 If your Lordship is happy with that, the parties are.
12 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: Is no expert evidence going to be
13 called?
14 MR. SILVERLEAF: Not as far as I can see. This is a case which
15 turns entirely on fact.
16 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: The only areas possible — No, I am not
17 going to encourage you to think of expert evidence.
18 MR. SILVERLEAF: I am very pleased to hear that, my Lord. Subject
19 to your Lordship’s approval —-
20 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: Yes. The only add-on I would have is
21 that skeleton arguments, reading lists, bundles, lists of
22 authorities should be lodged by, shall we say, Wednesday the
23 16th and make Monday the 21st a reading day for the judge.
24 And put my liberty to apply provision in.
25 MR. SILVERLEAF: I am sorry, my Lord. I was taking that as read.
16
1
2 I do apologise.
3 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: I have spoken to listing and Mr. Bell is
4 very happy to have you in on that day.
5 MR. SILVERLEAF: Excellent.
6 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: Costs reserved?
7 MR. MORPUSS: My Lord, the effect of this is that the summary
8 judgment application is not going to be heard and was a
9 mistake to have been brought.
10 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: No. You can have that argument at the
11 end of the trial.
12 MR. MORPUSS: Okay, my Lord.
13 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: If you ever reach that stage. The only
14 other thing is that dreadful word “mediation”. Is there any
15 prospect of a mediated settlement in this case? I would
16 suspect that the only possible time for mediation is after you
17 have had your disclosure and exchange of witness statements.
18 My experience is mediation does not take place when everything
19 is still inchoate. Maybe I do not need to say to such an
20 experienced team of lawyers that they should think about
21 settlement before they spend 10 days in court.
22 MR. SILVERLEAF: We have and we are, my Lord.
23 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: What, you are experienced and you have
24 discussed it?
25 MR. SILVERLEAF: We have thought about settlement and we are
17
1
2 thinking about it.
3 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: Right.
4 MR. SILVERLEAF: One always does.
5 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: Not always. We sometimes have lengthy
6 cases which attract comments about tanks and things. Very
7 well. If the order can be e-mailed to my associate and my
8 clerk, I will sign it off.
9 MR. SILVERLEAF: Thank you very much indeed, my Lord. We are very
10 grateful to your Lordship for both suggesting and
11 directing —-
12 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: The other thing that occurred to me is
13 this. You are going to maintain the status quo in the sense
14 that the defendants are going to be able to enter the existing
15 Grand Prix that will take place before the trial as they have
16 registered, presumably, and with all rights reserved in
17 respect of that?
18 MR. SILVERLEAF: Yes, my Lord, subject, obviously, to an agreement
19 to the contrary between the parties, whether temporary or
20 permanent. Also, we are both subject to the rule of Formula
21 One management. If Formula One management say we can or
22 cannot do something, either of us, then we are not able to
23 gainsay that because they are in control.
24 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: They are not going to stop the
25 defendants because the defendants are already registered to
18
1
2 participate, are they not?
3 MR. SILVERLEAF: I think that is right, my Lord.
4 MR. MORPUSS: Yes, that is right, my Lord. We are already
5 registered. It is too late —-
6 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: And not calling yourself “Lotus Renault”
7 are you, or anything like that?
8 MR. MORPUSS: We are not, my Lord, no.
9 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: The claimant is not calling itself Lotus
10 Renault?
11 MR. MORPUSS: It is, yes.
12 MR. SILVERLEAF: We are.
13 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: You are?
14 MR. SILVERLEAF: Yes.
15 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: There are going to be two Lotus ones
16 there.
17 MR. SILVERLEAF: That is why we are here, my Lord.
18 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: Both wearing the same logo?
19 MR. MORPUSS: Slightly different colours, my Lord.
20 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: There will be some very valuable
21 memorabilia available, will there not, if some of these come
22 out in the first part of the season?
23 I had a case like that concerning football cards. I had
24 stopped a rival football cards case and they left an original
25 one because I granted an injunction stopping them selling any
19
1
2 more. Unreasonably, they asked for the original back.
3 MR. SILVERLEAF: Suddenly acquired added value.
4 MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH: My former clerk’s son looked interested.
5 Very well. Thank you very much.
6 ————
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
*************************
This is Lotus’s media statement on the post High Court decision.
MEDIA INFORMATION
25 January 2011
Announcement
Group Lotus and Proton are delighted with the outcome of yesterday’s hearing in which the Judge ordered a full trial of this matter to be heard as soon as possible given the proximity of the start of the new 2011 Formula 1™ season in a few weeks. The trial has been fixed at the English High Court for 21 March 2011.
Group Lotus and Proton have been made aware of the press release issued by 1Malaysia Racing Team (1MRT), it is completely incorrect and a misrepresentation of the Judge’s decision suggesting that Group Lotus’ application was “thrown out”. No decision was made on Group Lotus’ application. The Judge proposed that the better procedural route was to order a speedy trial of all the issues in dispute in the case. 1MRT initially resisted the Judge’s approach to resolve all matters quickly and before the start of the 2011 Formula 1™ season but the order was subsequently made and the first available date was 21 March.
Group Lotus and Proton have always held the view that this matter should be resolved as soon as possible in the interests of Formula 1™ and the fans. We therefore welcome this decision and look forward to the full trial. We are confident that at the trial Group Lotus will succeed in preventing 1MRT, Mr Fernandes and his companies, from using the Lotus name in Formula 1™ once and for all.
ENDS
*******
Malaysians should know what their business leaders are made of. We don’t need rogues and/or liars to run our plcs. The public could be deceived and/or manipulated to invest in the wrong ventures conned by some individuals’ hair-brain scheme.
The "thirteen million plus Ringgit" guy rambles.... 
Cars are almost as expensive as houses in Malaysia so that Proton can get their jollies by dabbling in Formula 1 instead of spending time in making cheap decent cars.
I wonder how much time is Nadzmi spending on this Formula one thing instead of focusing on running Proton’s core business. He should be sacked for being negligent
the whole saga should have ended easily if tony told proton about his whole agenda
i dont know whether he kept secret or he already told proton about him buying that company rights through Tune
it just basic moral
he knows how much value that name pose to proton and Lotus Group (the one making the cars)
but somehow he decided it was best to not let other people know that hes buying the company
of course the original team Lotus had gone to the grave and whoever wear the Lotus liveries now, are entirely different to whatever Senna was driving before
I mean senna would be too much ashamed if hes got to face these nonsense and lack of honesty
sadly i believe Tonys the winner in this contest
but they are not going to rake up more points that Danny Bahar’s Lotus Renault
that team is all rounded proven in term of doing races
of course mike and co done good job getting both heikki and jarno to finish lines last season
but i cant see them go more than becoming The Best Newcomer mark II
and the other thing is that Tony’s team gonna use Renault engine for the upcoming season
i wonder what else in store for that matter
of course agreements were penned and signed well before 2011
but with such low level of moralities
u will never know
Really, ah? One would think that your entire post is “sub judice” as the British court has not as yet given it’s verdict, and regardless of the outcome, the losing party could take it to appeal.
Let’s see how the British legal system pans out, shall we?
I hold no particular brief for either Tony F or Proton. I do have grave doubts, though, if Proton could compete on fair and equal terms with the biggies in the auto industry as it is definitely not a niche player a la Saab, Volvo or Aston Martin.
does everything have to be malay v non-malay? piss off la…you truly are lame
does anybody say it is malay v non-malay? u r sick, man. mentally.
is malaysian vs malaysian!is sick!!!!1 malaysia?now we have more than 1 malaysia company in F1!!!!!!!najib 1 malaysia can’t used in F1 now!!!!!