On 10 July 2007, the Honourable Mr. Justice Peter Smith handed down judgment on Cashbox ATM Systems Limited (the 'Company's subsidiary') and Carl Thomas' application for permission to appeal against the summary judgment of Master Bowles dated 29 November 2006 in the ongoing proceedings brought by Hanco ATM Systems Limited ('Hanco').
The Company's subsidiary was granted permission to appeal against the decision of Master Bowles that it had knowingly received a document containing Hanco's trading terms and conditions. That aspect of the appeal was subsequently allowed and Hanco's application for summary judgment in relation to the Company's subsidiary's knowing receipt of Hanco's terms and conditions was dismissed.
The Company's subsidiary and Carl Thomas were refused permission to appeal against all other aspects of the Master's summary judgment award.
The Company's subsidiary and Carl Thomas were ordered to make the payment on account of costs of £150,000 previously ordered by Master Bowles on 21 February 2007, within 14 days. The Company's subsidiary and Carl Thomas were further ordered to pay, within 14 days, Hanco's costs of the application for permission to appeal and of the appeal itself summarily assessed at £49,760.
The Company has a joint and several indemnity from Carl Thomas and Anthony Sharp against any liability arising from or in connection with this litigation and is in the process of writing to both indemnifiers, following the order for costs, calling on the indemnities.
Hanco's application for an interim payment in relation to quantum is listed for hearing on 30 July 2007. The Company's subsidiary's position remains that Hanco will not be entitled to anything other than nominal recovery because Hanco would not have secured Phase II of the Threshers contract in any event; and Phase II of the Threshers contract was not profitable for the Company's subsidiary.