The respondents, "Lifestyle", brought a claim for infringement of registered trademarks. The trademarks include word marks for BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB and devices based on horse-riding polo players. The proceedings were brought against a group of sixteen defendants associated with the use of a sign SANTA MONICA POLO CLUB, together with images of horse-riding polo players. The first appellant, Mr Ahmed, and his sister, Ms Ahmed (the "Ahmeds"), the second appellant, were named defendants.
The Ahmeds were alleged to be legally responsible for the torts committed by companies of which they were directors. At the first trial in October 2017, the court found that the defendants (including the eleventh defendant, of which the Ahmeds were directors) had committed trade mark infringement and misrepresented the goods as being the goods of someone else. The Ahmeds themselves, however were not found liable, because this trial did not materially concern their involvement in the matter. Lifestyle made a claim against the third and eleventh defendant companies seeking payment of the profits made from the tort but both companies became insolvent.
There was then a second trial concerning the Ahmeds' accessory liability. The Ahmeds were each found to be liable and each ordered to pay money to Lifestyle to account for profits made from the tort.
Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeal. Lifestyle's appeal was dismissed but the Ahmeds' appeal was allowed in part. Both parties now appeal to the Supreme Court.

The respondents, "Lifestyle", brought a claim for infringement of registered trademarks. The trademarks include word marks for BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB and devices based on horse-riding polo players. The proceedings were brought against a group of sixteen defendants associated with the use of a sign SANTA MONICA POLO CLUB, together with images of horse-riding polo players. The first appellant, Mr Ahmed, and his sister, Ms Ahmed (the "Ahmeds"), the second appellant, were named defendants.
The Ahmeds were alleged to be legally responsible for the torts committed by companies of which they were directors. At the first trial in October 2017, the court found that the defendants (including the eleventh defendant, of which the Ahmeds were directors) had committed trade mark infringement and misrepresented the goods as being the goods of someone else. The Ahmeds themselves, however were not found liable, because this trial did not materially concern their involvement in the matter. Lifestyle made a claim against the third and eleventh defendant companies seeking payment of the profits made from the tort but both companies became insolvent.
There was then a second trial concerning the Ahmeds' accessory liability. The Ahmeds were each found to be liable and each ordered to pay money to Lifestyle to account for profits made from the tort.
Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeal. Lifestyle's appeal was dismissed but the Ahmeds' appeal was allowed in part. Both parties now appeal to the Supreme Court.