Whether a GCRO should be granted
22.Mr Perry’s argument for resisting a GCRO was simply that all the claims he wished to bring were fully justified. I informed Mr Perry that having gone through his extensive submissions in writing, all of his claims seemed to me to be without merit, although I confessed that I sometimes struggled to understand the point he was making. Mr Perry said he would take me through some of the clearest evidence of fraud to prove his point.23.As I mentioned earlier, Mr Perry’s original claim was for patent infringement. It related to fence brackets sold in this country by Brundle and Britannia. They were supplied to Brundle and Britannia by Betafence, which is a UK subsidiary of the Belgian manufacturer of the brackets (“Betafence Belgium”).24.In July 2012 Mr Perry wrote a letter to Betafence alleging infringement of his patent. On 25 July 2012 he received a letter from the Belgian lawyers acting for Betafence Belgium, denying infringement and alleging the patent was invalid. Some months later, on 5 October 2012, Mr Perry complained to Brundle about the brackets. On 15 October 2012 Collyer Bristow responded on behalf of Brundle and their letter included this:“We are aware that you have written to our client’s supplier, Betafence Limited, and that their advisers have provided detailed reasons in their letter to you dated 25 July 2012 why, if the Patent is valid and subsisting at all, the Brackets do not infringe.”25.Mr Perry said this was the clearest possible evidence of an improper collusion between Brundle and Betafence; it was the only possible explanation for Brundle having become aware of Mr Perry’s complaint to Betafence and the Belgian lawyers’ reply in July 2012.26.I can see that there was collusion but do not agree with Mr Perry that there was anything at all improper about it. When Brundle received the letter of complaint from Mr Perry in October 2012 the most obvious thing for them to do was to refer the complaint to the manufacturer of the allegedly infringing brackets. Betafence may have reassured Brundle that in Betafence’s view (and as turned out to be the case) there was no infringement, supplying a copy of Betafence’s July correspondence with Mr Perry by way of support. I should say that I do not know exactly what happened and I did not ask Mr Austen to elaborate. It did not matter. Betafence passing to Brundle its correspondence with Mr Perry was neither unlawful nor improper. It was a perfectly sound disclosure.27.Having read through Mr Perry’s other complaints, I have to say that it did not surprise me to discover that what Mr Perry regarded as being among the strongest evidence of fraud he had, evaporated away on closer inspection. Of course it does not necessarily follow that all the rest of his suggestions of unlawful conduct are as similarly insubstantial, but so far I have seen nothing that puts them above the level of being totally without merit.28.Some of the claims and applications that Mr Perry wishes to bring are not connected with the allegation of patent infringement that formed the basis of the present proceedings. I have in mind the application to rescind his bankruptcy order, arguably the new claim for passing off and possibly Mr Perry’s complaint against the Official Receiver.29.I am satisfied that there is real risk that Mr Perry intends to bring claims and applications in the future that are totally without merit and which necessitates the grant of a GCRO.30.For the foregoing reasons a GCRO has been granted against Mr Perry. It will be for a period of two years starting from 27 March 2017.