IN THE COURT OF APFEAL 1991 Ch F No. 0480/90

ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CHANCERY DIVISION)

between

ANDREW MALCOLM Plaintiff

and

THE CHANCELLOR, MASTERS AND SCHOLARS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD Defendants

RESPONDENTS' NOTICE UNDER ORDER 59, RULES 6 (1) (a) AND (c)

TAKE NOTICE that the abovenamed Defendants intend, upon the hearing of the appeal under the Plaintiff's notice of Appeal dated 18 December 1991 from the orders of Master Barratt made on 11 July 1991 and 19 November 1991 as to the quantum of damages and as to costs, to cross-appeal FOR ORDERS THAT:

1. the quantum of damages for loss of royalties and for loss of beneficial publicity be reduced to such lesser sum as may be just; and

2. the Plaintiff do pay on the standard basis the Defendants' costs of the assessment below, including the costs excluded by paragraph 2 of the Order of 19 November 1991 relating to certain Affidavit evidence, AND the Defendants' costs of this appeal, to be taxed if not agreed.

AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE THAT the grounds for this application are:

1. that Master Barratt erred in his conclusions that the reception of "Making Names" would have been reasonably favourable and that the damages for loss of beneficial publicity should be assessed at £6,000.

2. that the Defendants' concession that "Making Names" would have sold 15,000 copies should not be relied upon by this Honourable Court for the calculation of damages for loss of royalties or of beneficial publicity, in the event that the appeal as to the quantum of damages is to be allowed, in whole or in part.

3. that Master Barratt would not otherwise properly have arrived at his conclusions that 15,000 copies of "Making Names" would have been sold and that the damages for loss of royalties should be calculated on the basis of the sale of 15,000 copies.

4. that Master Barratt erred in his conclusion that the Defendants should not have found it necessary to incur the costs of adducing evidence of publishers other than the Defendants in order to establish that the Defendants' practices were, in the context of general publishing practice, fair and reasonable;

5. that Master Barratt consequently erred in excluding from the order requiring the Plaintiff to pay the Defendants' costs those costs relating to the evidence of those persons referred to in paragraph 2 of Master Barratt's Order of 19 November 1991.

DATED the 8th day of January 1992

Clifford Chance, Blackfriars House, 19 New Bridge Street, London EC4V 6BY
Ref KEA/00452/001/MTS
Solicitors for the Defendants


Go to some pre-settlement correspondene or straight to the Settlement agreement of 1st July 1992

Go to the Malcolm vs. Oxford I (1984-92) Index or the Malcolm vs. Oxford II (2001-02) Index

Go to the Affidavits: Ivon Asquith (1), Asquith (2), Henry Hardy, William Shaw (solicitor) (1), Sir Roger Elliott (1), Margaret Goodall, to the Witness Statements: Elliott, Hardy, Richard Charkin, Nicola Bion, Goodall, to the courtroom testimony of the Oxford Six, 14/3/1990: Elliott, Goodall, Bion, Asquith, Charkin, Hardy, to the testimony of Andrew Malcolm, 13/3/1990, to the Statement of Claim, to the Case History, to the Chancery Court Judgment, to the Appeal Court Judgment.

THE SITE INDEX.