Entrance to the Rolls Building where IPEC sits
By Muhammad Karns – Judicial Office Twitter feed., CC BY-SA 4.0,
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=78284579

 

Jane Lambert

Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Recorder Amanda Michaels) Leeds Plywood & Doors Ltd v Deanta UK Ltd [2025] EWHC 1376 (IPEC) (3 Jun 2025)

This transcript records Recorder Amansa Michaels’s judgments in two interim applications:

  • The defendant’s application to strike out certain paragraphs of the claimant’s managing director’s witness statement and a cross-application by the claimant to strike out part of the witness statement of one of the defendant’s witnesses; and 
  • The claimant’s application for specific disclosure.
These applications seem to have been made at a very late stage because the recorder said at para [3] of her judgment that the trial was to take place in July.  The cause of action is not made clear, but as both parties make doors and there are references to design documents and copyright, the claim is likely to have been for infringement of unregistered design right and/or possibly supplementary unregistered design, a registered design or copyright.
Context
In multitrack proceedings in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (“IPEC”), the court orders disclosure and the exchange of witness statements at a hearing called the case management conference (“CMC”).   A CMC normally takes place after the parties have filed and served statements of case or pleadings.   At the CMC, the court determines the date for trial, the issues to be tried, the evidence to be admitted in relation to them and a timetable for disclosure of documents and the exchange of witness statements.  A sample of a CMC order can be found at Annex B of The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court Guide.
Witness Statements
Although the recorder did not refer to any rules or practice directions in her judgment, she would have borne in mind CPR Part 32, Practice Direction 32 – Evidence and Practice Direction 57AC – Trial Witness Statements in the Business and Property Courts.  PD57AC is particularly important because it sets out the purpose of witness statements for use at trial in the Business and Property Courts (including IPEC), the content of witness statements that incorporates a Statement of Best Practice appended to the practice direction, a requirement that the legal representative with the conduct of the case signs a certificate of compliance and sanctions for non compliance.  Those sanctions include:

(1) refusal to give or withdrawal of permission to rely on, or strike out, part or all of a trial witness statement,
(2) an order that a trial witness statement be re-drafted in accordance with this Practice Direction or as may be directed by the court,
(3) an adverse costs order against the non-complying party,
(4) an order to a witness to give some or all of their evidence in chief orally.

Defendant’s Application
The defendant applied for 20 paragraphs of the accused witness statement on the grounds that they amounted to no more than a description of, and commentary upon, documents that had been disclosed by the defendant, references to correspondence between the parties, and various complaints about disclosure in the course of the proceedings.  The claimant accepted that those paragraphs were comments but contended that they were helpful.   The recorder agreed that commentary was helpful and that the witness made points that she would expect in a skeleton argument or oral submissions, but it did not constitute evidence.  She would not normally have encouraged the defendant’s application because the court would have given no weight to the accused paragraphs, but as the defendant had launched the strike-out application, she had to decide it. She struck out the offending paragraphs.
The defendant asked for 6 other paragraphs to be struck out on the grounds that they did not constitute evidence and that they made allegations of serial copying that went well beyond the claimant’s pleaded case.  The recorder found that one of those paragraphs was commentary rather than evidence, and that another two made allegations that had not been pleaded, but she allowed the other three to remain.
Claimant’s Cross-Application
The claimant had similar objections to several paragraphs of one of the defendant’s witness statements. The recorder agreed that one of the paragraphs contained sentences that made allegations that had not been pleaded.  Sge struck out those sentences but could see no reason to strike out the others.
Claimant’s Specific Disclosure Application

The claimant sought specific disclosure of “documents related to Annex 4 of the defence and counterclaim” in accordance with a draft order that had been exhibited to a witness statement supporting the application.  The recorder rejected that application as far too broad but she did order disclosure of documents that supported an allegation of independent design.   In making that order, she gave the defendant permission to apply should the production of those documents so close to trial prove unduly onerous. 

Comment
One reason for the strict adherence to procedural rules in IPEC is that the overall costs and the costs of different stages of the litigation that can be recovered are capped (see my article New Costs Rules for IPEC, 6 Nov 2022)..  Another is that trials must be completed within two days. This case serves as a salutary reminder of the distinction between evidence and argument.  Anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me on 020 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form at any time.