PROVING THINGS 90 : THE TATTOO ARTIST & THE CACTUS SHOP: PRICK ME ONE MORE TIME

April 20, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content

The opportunities for puns arising out of the issues in Martinez (t/a Prick) & Anor v Prick Me Baby One More Time Ltd (t/a Prick) & Anor [2018] EWHC 776 (IPEC) are obvious (and indeed are mentioned in the judgment itself). However it is easy to overlook the fact that the resolution of this...

Enjoying this post?

Become a Civil Litigation Brief member to read full articles and access all premium content.

Become a member

Already a member? Log in below

Tags: Evidence, proving things

2 Responses

Gabor · April 20, 2018 at 12:22:30 · →

A judge describing a member of the public as a “moron in a hurry”. Hmmm.
gexall · April 20, 2018 at 13:44:54 · →

I think that is unfair “a moron in a hurry” is not a description of the witness. It is a term of art. It was used – for the first time I think – when the Morning Star bought a passing off action against the Daily Star. The judge held that only a “moron in a hurry” would be confused between the two publications.