High Court criticises use of contempt proceedings against rival lawyers in IP dispute
The High Court has ordered a claimant company to pay £215,000 on account of costs after dismissing contempt proceedings that a judge said had “weaponised” the court’s contempt jurisdiction against rival lawyers. In High Court of Justice proceedings involving Bargain Busting Limited and Shenzhen SKE Technology Company Limited, HHJ Paul Matthews ruled that the claimant must pay the defendants’ legal costs on the indemnity basis following failed contempt allegations linked to a trademark dispute.
The contempt proceedings had been launched in August 2025 against Shenzhen SKE Technology Company Limited, Stobbs IP Limited, and two solicitors, Wan-Yi Tsai and Jixuan Si. The allegations centred on communications sent to the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) asking it not to register a trademark until an appeal process had concluded.
In his consequential judgment handed down on 13 May 2026, HHJ Matthews said the proceedings involved “very serious allegations against officers of the court” which potentially carried significant professional consequences. The judge stated that the claimant’s solicitors had acted “wrong and out of the norm” by using criminal contempt proceedings to pursue private commercial interests.
He also criticised correspondence sent by the claimant’s solicitors in January 2026, which referenced potential breaches of the Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct. The court found that the letter would objectively have been understood as a threat to report the defendants to the SRA unless settlement terms were agreed.
HHJ Matthews additionally referred to a without prejudice telephone call between solicitors in March 2026, during which the claimant allegedly justified issuing contempt proceedings as a means of applying pressure over the trademark registration dispute. The court concluded that the conduct overwhelmingly justified indemnity costs.
While the defendants sought a summary assessment of costs exceeding £322,000, including VAT, the judge ordered a detailed assessment due to the complexity and duration of the litigation. However, he also ordered Bargain Busting Limited to pay £215,000 immediately on account of costs pending that assessment.
The claimant also sought permission to appeal the earlier ruling dismissing the contempt claims. HHJ Matthews rejected all five proposed grounds of appeal, finding none had a real prospect of success. The judge concluded that the claimant had failed to demonstrate any sufficient public interest in pursuing the contempt allegations and dismissed the application for permission to appeal.