| Return to opening page |
Return to Views on Terrorism |
Frost & Parkes v Cintec International Limited Background. Frost & Parkes trading as Dell Explosives promoted an anti-terrorist business using the technology developed by John Parkes and Professor Salter of Edinburgh University. Simply put this is a method of explosive suppression which nullifies the explosive harm caused by a bomb on board an aircraft or the damage occasioned by a suicide bomber. This technology is enshrined in a number of U.K. and U.S.A. patents. Cintec International Limited aped Parkes and Salter’s technology. Frost & Parkes in July 2003 raised an action in the Court of Session against Cintec. Cintec subsequently raised an English High Court threats action under section 70 of the patents act against Parkes and Frost. In October 2003 Frost & Parkes lost the threats action and Mr Justice Laddie awarded an interim costs order against them for £90,000. Frost and Parkes were subsequently sequestrated by Cintec for their failure to pay the costs order. Both Frost & Parkes have the Accountant in Bankruptcy as their interim trustee. Cintec sought and obtained an award of caution against Frost & Parkes. Frost and Parkes along with their interim trustee, the Accountant in Bankruptcy, maintain that it was improper that an award of caution should be made against them prior to the appointment of a permanent trustee, they sought to have the cause sisted. This is the first recorded case under the current bankruptcy acts of 1985 and 1993 where caution has been demanded from debtors when a permanent trustee has not been appointed and as such a permanent trustee has not had the opportunity of sisting himself in room and place. Cintec’s legal argument before Mr MacDonald Q.C. was that sequestration has no real effect on the debtors assets which the debtor can trade at will during the period of an interim trustee until the appointment of a permanent trustee. Frost, Parkes and the Accountant in Bankruptcy all disagree with this analysis. Other salient facts: 1.Cintec recognises the
appointment of Accountant in Bankruptcy for Cintec has offered to the
Accountant in Bankruptcy to write off Cintec’s debt against Frost &
Parkes and also purchase the patents for a nominal sum.
2.Expressions of interest in the patents have been recorded from both the US and U.K. intelligence services and seven figure offers are expected shortly. 3.While Frost & Parkes lost
the threats action they did so because Mr Justice Laddie maintained
that Cintec’s then products were defective.
4.The threats provision under the
current act is being abolished by Parliament.
5.Cintec’s new product range does
appear to infringe the patents.
6.If Cintec loses the
jurisdiction argument in Scotland then the English proceedings could be
struck out with the loss of Cintec’s costs award.
7.Abuse of process proceedings
have been initiated in England against Cintec.
8.Cintec’s costs have not been
taxed; Cintec is seeking £220,000 for a five day Proof; Frost and
Parkes law accountants suggest that £30,000 is more reasonable.
Martin Frost 2004-06-29 |
|
|
|
Return to Views on Terrorism |