The High Court has refused an application by Nualtra Limited to remove a trademark dispute from the Commercial list, ruling that the conduct behind a counterclaim had been settled and no useful purpose would be served by a transfer.
Nutrimedical B.V. and Aymes International Limited brought the proceedings, alleging trademark infringement and seeking injunctions, damages and other relief. Nualtra counterclaimed for damages over unlawful interference with its trade or business, arising from a forged “poison pen” letter about one of its products and a malicious telephone call. The judgment says Aymes admitted responsibility for the forged letter, which purported to come from the NHS, and that the call was made by someone connected with Aymes.
The counterclaim, including its costs, was later settled. The High Court said the conduct could still affect the plaintiffs’ credibility at the substantive hearing, but it was no longer a live issue for the transfer application. The court described the conduct as reprehensible and the circumstances as disturbing and unusual. It also noted that the plaintiffs’ lawyers were accepted to be blameless.
Nualtra argued that the conduct justified removing the case from the Commercial list. The court accepted that it had an inherent discretion to transfer a case in exceptional circumstances, although the default position was that a case admitted to the list should remain there. The judge said that power should be used to ensure compliance with court rules and directions, not to punish a party.
The court also considered a claimed difference between Aymes’ description of itself as a “very small player” in English proceedings and its pleaded position as a “big player” in the Irish case. The judge said that was not a reason to transfer the case, although it could raise a credibility issue.
The plaintiffs had complied with directions since admission to the Commercial list. Remaining steps included discovery, an exchange of witness statements and submissions, and setting a trial date. The judge noted that a transfer to the Chancery list could delay this case and affect related proceedings.
Justice Brian J. McGovern refused the application. The underlying trademark dispute remains before the High Court; the ruling did not decide the infringement claim.