Suffolk Sportscars - liquidation
Discussion
mph said:
DonkeyApple said:
Of course, the other scenario is that the owner, who is the debtor has the advantage of using a letter from JLR and a supposed slow down due to C19 to crystallise his loss for tax purposes, dump the employee liabilities overnight and retain first dibs on clean slating the operation if he desires.
Reasons given are never the reasons for.
I think that's a very reasonable proposition. Reasons given are never the reasons for.
Edited by DonkeyApple on Saturday 5th September 11:52
Any official updates on this ?
On other forums there are claims that the scenario has panned out as DonkeyApple speculated it may, i.e. the owner is still the owner and was the main creditor of his own company.
Also seems that other replica manufacturers have been told to desist by JLR and have thrown the letter in the bin.
On other forums there are claims that the scenario has panned out as DonkeyApple speculated it may, i.e. the owner is still the owner and was the main creditor of his own company.
Also seems that other replica manufacturers have been told to desist by JLR and have thrown the letter in the bin.
Does anyone know what exactly Suffolk were accused of by jlr ie the basis in law of their complaint.
I suspect it’s an alleged breach of copyright in the designs for the cars, which is a result of a recent amendment to the law in the UK. In the past it wasn’t so easy to go after “evocations”
I suspect it’s an alleged breach of copyright in the designs for the cars, which is a result of a recent amendment to the law in the UK. In the past it wasn’t so easy to go after “evocations”
JLR have recently lost their case against Ineos who are to go into production with a "copy" of the recently discontinued Land Rover defender.
On that basis It seems highly unlikely that they will succeed in preventing someone producing replicas (in minute quantities) of a car that Jaguar stopped making more than 80 years ago.
A pointless exercise and a PR blunder by Jaguar.
On that basis It seems highly unlikely that they will succeed in preventing someone producing replicas (in minute quantities) of a car that Jaguar stopped making more than 80 years ago.
A pointless exercise and a PR blunder by Jaguar.
So much speculation here. Since Land Rover lost their case against INEOS, the ruling that you cannot copyright a shape would have had implications for any replica maker in that they would have been freed from any threat from the original manufacturer. So blaming the bankruptcy on Jaguar is a complete fabrication. Yes, like other makers, he had received a "cease and desist" letter from Jaguar's solicitors, and one had said "sue and be damned" and heard nothing further. Roger Williams has now gone bankrupt three times to my knowledge, and a quick look at Companies House will show that the indebtment has been accruing for years, Since he owns the property himself the debt owed to himself could just have been a notional rent owed to him while he continued to draw a big salary. I have no idea, but it could just be that. Note also that curiously the directors took possession of all stock in hand held by the company in part-payment of the debt earlier this year.
In his letter announcing the liquidation, he blamed COVID, but the company was already in deep trouble. They had been selling cars with a V5 based on the identity of an old XJ6, something we all did in the day but something that the DVLA are now paying special attention to. I have been contacted by one person who bought an alloy-bodied C-type which he innocently sold later on. The new owner has had the V5 pulled and must now put the car through the IVA before it can once again be put on the road. It seems (I have no proof) that the DVLA have a list of registrations of cars built by Suffolk, and, while not investigating them now, are waiting until they are sold and then demanding photos of the car. Problem - an SS 100 does not look like an XJ6. Suffolk did not tell the purchaser that the car was technically illegal and that they, as manufacturer, should have put it through the IVA themselves.
I could go on, but the phoenix has a habit of emerging from the ashes. Suffolk, the day after the liquidation, were trading again in the same building but under a new name. They are still supposedly making cars and selling spares. But I wonder if those who got burned will be happy to supply again.
In his letter announcing the liquidation, he blamed COVID, but the company was already in deep trouble. They had been selling cars with a V5 based on the identity of an old XJ6, something we all did in the day but something that the DVLA are now paying special attention to. I have been contacted by one person who bought an alloy-bodied C-type which he innocently sold later on. The new owner has had the V5 pulled and must now put the car through the IVA before it can once again be put on the road. It seems (I have no proof) that the DVLA have a list of registrations of cars built by Suffolk, and, while not investigating them now, are waiting until they are sold and then demanding photos of the car. Problem - an SS 100 does not look like an XJ6. Suffolk did not tell the purchaser that the car was technically illegal and that they, as manufacturer, should have put it through the IVA themselves.
I could go on, but the phoenix has a habit of emerging from the ashes. Suffolk, the day after the liquidation, were trading again in the same building but under a new name. They are still supposedly making cars and selling spares. But I wonder if those who got burned will be happy to supply again.
Edited by lowdrag on Friday 25th September 12:36
GoodOlBoy said:
Ironic that Land Rover should take anyone to court for copying their design when the original Land Rover concept was copied from the Willys Jeep.
Who along with Ford had been given access to the original Bantam design by the US Govt, and were contracted to build the GPW as both had the production capacity to do so, which Bantam didn't.DonkeyApple said:
GoodOlBoy said:
Ironic that Land Rover should take anyone to court for copying their design when the original Land Rover concept was copied from the Willys Jeep.
And Willy’s had already ripped of the design from Bantum. 
mph said:
DonkeyApple said:
GoodOlBoy said:
Ironic that Land Rover should take anyone to court for copying their design when the original Land Rover concept was copied from the Willys Jeep.
And Willy’s had already ripped of the design from Bantum. 
Bantum met the design brief but were deemed too small so the Govt have their blueprints to Willy’s and then Ford.
GoodOlBoy said:
Ironic that Land Rover should take anyone to court for copying their design when the original Land Rover concept was copied from the Willys Jeep.
A slight difference is, whilst the original Land Rover concept was "copied" from the Willys jeep, it wasn't a Willy's jeep replica:1948 Land Rover Concept:
1948 Jeep:
In fact, in a strange twist, the 1952 Willy's cj-5 Jeep is more of a 1948 Land Rover replica, than the Land Rover was a replica of the 40's Jeep:
1952 Willys cj-5:
In the case of Suffolk Sportscars, they weren't making cars that were a similar concept to Jaguar's cars, they were making replica's (to varying degrees of accuracy), and by the sounds of things, using Jaguar V5's for trading purposes.
CanAm said:
Skyedriver said:
'scuse my hignorance but if you cannot copyright a car shape how did Westfield get sued by Caterham?
Hi Tony,I guess because they were still making it and had the sole licence from Lotus for Europe?
Cheers,
Alan
The Westfield and Birkin cases were ,shall we say, based on shaky grounds.
Caterham later copyrighted certain features of the design such as the screen supports to
prevent copycat /lookalikes being made.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff