Case No. IP-2018-000182

7.Volumatic adduced evidence from two witnesses: (a)Mr Duncan Johnson is Volumatic’s Technical Director. He filed two witness statements, and was cross-examined. His evidence was not criticised, other than a suggestion from Mr Popplewell that it was self-serving. I disagree: Mr Johnson was a good witness. (b)Mr Colin Amos is Volumatic’s Financial Director. He filed two witness statements, and was cross-examined. Importantly, Mr Amos gave evidence on Volumatic’s willingness to enter into a 10-year manufacturing agreement with IFL, stating candidly that, on the basis of legal advice, Volumatic was not willing to do so “whether it be in 2007, whether it be in 2016, whether it be yesterday”. Whilst attempts were made in re-examination to soften this comment, Mr Popplewell submitted that they were not successful, and I agree. In re-examination, Mr Amos amended his comments to the effect that had he been forced by legal advice to enter into a 10-year manufacturing agreement, he (on behalf of Volumatic) may reluctantly have done so. But his earlier evidence was of a clear unwillingness to do so, and I prefer that evidence. I make one other comment in relation to Mr Amos’ evidence in paragraph 25 below. 8.IFL adduced evidence from a single witness, Mr Richard Williams, who is a director of IFL and of what was described as an “associated company”, Designs For Life Limited (DFL). IFL and DFL have common shareholders and directors. For the most part, the legal distinction between DFL and IFL does not matter for the purposes of these proceedings, and, at times, Mr Williams used the two corporate entities interchangeably. Mr Williams was also cross-examined, and no criticism was made of his evidence. 9.I accept that each of the witnesses was doing his best to recall and recount details from discussions some of which were over 14 years ago. Each witness was asked his understanding of the legal effect of the Agreement. Whilst their answers differed, I accept that each was telling the truth as he believed it to be. The parties agreed that the subjective intention of the parties was not relevant to many of the issues before the court. In the end, I have reached conclusions different to some of the witnesses on issues of law that are for me to decide, but I accept that, in giving their evidence, they were doing their best to assist the court.