Polypipe Limited v Peter Russell Davidson
[2023] EWHC 1681 (Comm)
Ocean On Land Technology (UK) Limited & Anor v Richard Land & Ors
4 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 396 (IPEC)
High Court
Two companies are fighting in court. They argued about what evidence should be allowed. The judge decided some evidence was not allowed because it was secret, expert opinion, or not important enough. The judge also said the case should be simpler and cheaper.
Key Facts
- •Dispute between Ocean on Land Technology Ltd and Caribbean Sustainable Fisheries Corp (Claimants) and Richard Land, Dennis Gowland, and Northbay Innovations Ltd (Defendants) regarding breach of contract, trademark infringement, and patent infringement stemming from share purchase agreements, patent assignment, and a settlement agreement.
- •Three applications before the court: Defendants' application for permission to reply to Claimants' witness evidence, and Claimants' applications to strike out parts of Defendants' witness statements and for permission to reply.
- •Disputes centered around admissibility of evidence, particularly concerning without prejudice communications, expert evidence, and relevance to the issues identified in the Case Management Conference (CMC) order.
- •The court considered the overriding objective and costs-benefit test applicable in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC).
Legal Principles
Without Prejudice Rule
Various cases including Unilever Plc v Proctor & Gamble Co [2000] 1 WLR 2436, Muller v Linsley and Mortimer [1994] EWCA Civ 39, Oceanbulk Shipping SA v TMT Ltd [2010] UKSC 44, Holyoake v Candy [2016] EWHC 2119 (Ch)
Contractual Interpretation
Wood v Capita [2017] UKSC 24, Prenn v Simmonds [1971] 1 WLR 1381, Arnold v. Britton [2015] UKSC 36, Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] UKHL 38
Admissibility of Expert Evidence
CPR 63.23(1) and paragraph 29 of PD 63
Relevance of Evidence in IPEC
IPEC Guide (October 2022 edition), paragraph 4.6, Temple Island v New English Teas [2011] EWPCC 19, Liversidge v Owen Mumford [2011] EWPCC 34
Outcomes
Defendants' application to reply to Claimants' witness statement (paragraph 7) dismissed.
Alleged misrepresentation and contradictions were deemed not sufficiently material to warrant additional evidence. The court preferred a simpler solution of removing the objectionable words.
Parts of Defendants' witness statements struck out.
Some evidence was deemed inadmissible (expert evidence, without prejudice material not falling under exceptions), irrelevant, or prejudicial. Other issues of relevance were left to the trial judge.
Claimants' conditional application for permission to serve reply evidence dismissed.
Would not satisfy the cost-benefit test.
Costs reserved for the trial judge.
To allow the trial judge to consider the costs and impact of the applications in the context of the overall action and the IPEC costs cap.