Case Nos: IL-2023-000080 and IL-2024-000038 - [2025] EWHC 2561 (Ch)

At the end of 1959, a pilot scheme was introduced in Norwich allotting a postcode to each private and business address in that city. During the 1960s and 70s the scheme was modified and rolled out to cover all addresses in the UK. It gave rise to a database of UK postal addresses created by the Post Office. The addresses consisted of, at the minimum, a building number or name, the name of a thoroughfare, a town name and a postcode. The database was given the name ‘the Postcode Address File’ or ‘PAF’. The PAF has been continually maintained, corrected and updated since then.

In 2001, following interim changes the Post Office became the Royal Mail Group (‘RMG’), now trading as Royal Mail. Since the 1990s the PAF has been made available to other users, subject to a licence fee. There are now about 50,000 such users.

In 2013 Christopher Blanchard, a software developer, reached the view that there was a potential market demand for a software program allowing the user to search for or verify postal addresses, a service that would be easier to use than those then available. He created such a program, called ‘Ideal Postcodes’. Ideal Postcodes is based on a database of postal addresses called the ‘GBR Database’ created by Mr Blanchard. The GBR Database was built around the PAF as licensed from RMG. Ideal Postcodes was first made available to users in August 2013 through IDDQD Limited (‘IDDQD’), of which Mr Blanchard is sole director.

In 2014-15 another software developer, Lee Smith, created a database of postal addresses which he called ‘GetAddress’. GetAddress was first marketed by Mr Smith in around November 2014. In May 2015 Mr Smith incorporated Codeberry Limited (‘Codeberry’) as his trading company which was thereafter the marketing vehicle for GetAddress. GetAddress has been marketed in competition with the PAF and Ideal Postcodes. The claimants say that GetAddress was created using PAF data in part and later modified using the GBR Database which contains PAF data. They allege that because the defendants have avoided paying any licence fees to RMG they have been able to offer GetAddress at prices which severely undercut the prices of competitors who pay PAF licence fees, including IDDQD.

On 18 May 2023 IDDQD issued the claim form in the first of the present joined actions, brought against Codeberry and Mr Smith. IDDQD claims ownership of database right in the GBR Database and alleges that Mr Smith acted in breach of the terms of a licence entered into by Mr Smith with IDDQD for the use of the GBR Database. In consequence, acts done by Mr Smith and Codeberry were not licensed and both have infringed IDDQD’s database right. There was also a claim for copyright infringement which was later not pursued.

On 27 March 2024 RMG issued the claim form in the second action before the court. RMG says alleges that the defendants have infringed RMG’s copyright and database right in the PAF by, without a licence, obtaining a substantial part of the PAF when GetAddress was created and later adding further data from the PAF via the defendants’ use of the GBR Database, and by marketing that substantial part within Codeberry’s GetAddress product.

On 2 August 2024 Peter Knox KC ordered that the IDDQD and RMG actions were to be heard together at a single trial subject to an exception. There is a counterclaim in the RMG action in which the defendants allege anti-competitive behaviour by RMG in breach of art.102 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union and s.18 of the Competition Act 1998. By the Order of 2 August 2024 the counterclaim is to be tried separately.