HL Deb 27 July 1977 vol 386 cc1078-80

162 After Clause 102, insert the following new clause:

Costs and expenses in proceedings before the Court under s. 37

  1. .—(1) In proceedings before the court under section 37 above (whether on an application or on appeal to the court), the court, in determining whether to award costs or expenses to any party and what costs or expenses to award, shall have regard to all the relevant circumstances, including the financial position of the parties.
  2. (2) If in any such proceedings the Patents Court directs that any costs of one party shall be paid by anoher party, the court may settle the amount of the costs by fixing a lump sum or may direct that the costs shall be taxed on a scale specified by the court, being a scale of costs prescribed by the Rules of the Supreme Court or by the County Court Rules.

7.8 p.m.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 162. Your Lordships will remember that both in Committee and on Report the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, by moving Amendments, made resolute attempts in order to have the effect that in applications by an employee for compensation under Clause 37 of the Bill no costs could have been awarded against the employee. On those earlier occasions I endeavoured to make it plain that, like the noble Lord, I was anxious that nothing should be done or provided for to discourage an employee with a good case from making an application, but I thought that the cross-sanction should be retained to deter employees from making applications without merit. I pointed out that since the employee was always the applicant he had the option of beginning his proceedings before the comptroller, where costs are relatively modest and where discretion is given to the comptroller. I still hold these views, but while the Bill was being debated in another place it was put to me that there was nothing to prevent an employer appealing from the comptroller to the Patents Court, where costs are not on such a modest scale, and the mere threat of such an appeal might suffice to deter an employee from making an application.

Accordingly, I agree that the Patents Court should have a discretion to award costs, either on the High Court scale or on any of the county court scales, or to make a lump sum order for costs. This provision, which, incidentally, is similar to that followed by the Lands Tribunal, will give the Patents Court a wide discretion, and when exercising that discretion the court will be obliged to take into account the financial position of the parties. I hope, accordingly, that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, will feel that this has gone a good deal of the way to make the point to which he attached such importance. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)

Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN

My Lords, may I briefly express my gratitude to the Government for introducing this new clause, which goes some way to meet the points I had in mind in regard to the employee-inventor. A gross injustice would be involved if an employee-inventor were discouraged from applying for his rights under the Bill. I have already on many occasions congratulated the Government on introducing these clauses extending the rights of employee-inventors in this way. This clause reduces, to some extent, the financial hazards which would have faced an employee-inventor. As I have said on so many occasions in this House, patent litigation is notoriously expensive. This Amendment will go some way to assist the employee-inventor in trying to exercise his own rights.

On Question, Motion agreed to.