Case No. IP-2019-000175

”). 65.After Mr D’Aguanno and Ms Muller left DPA, they set up the offices of MUDA within office space rented from Mr Simpson in one of his properties in Essex. Mr Simpson disinstructed DPA and appointed MUDA as architects to the Wellington House project. DPA alleges in the particulars of claim that: (i)Claimant’s pleaded case alleges wider commercial use infringements, this is the only allegation that was proceeded with at trial. 66.Mr D’Aguanno’s and Ms Muller’s evidence is that they did not use or need to use the Wellington House Works, as the Wellington House project was begun again from scratch and they, through MUDA, produced an entirely new scheme. I have seen the drawings of the new MUDA scheme and compared them to the old DPA scheme and I am satisfied that it is an entirely new scheme. DPA did not attempt to argue the contrary at trial. 67.They also say that as part of starting the design process from scratch with new architects, Mr Simpson commissioned a new survey of the site, including the existing building, from a third-party surveyor. Again, I am satisfied that he did do so, as I have seen the survey dated 15 January 2019 by SJ Geomatics which is contained in the bundle. 68.DPA makes the following submissions in support of its allegations of possession and use of the Wellington House Works: (i)In pre-action correspondence in March 2019 Mr D’Aguanno and Ms Muller did not deny having them in their possession or deny their entitlement to make use of them, saying that if DPA had an issue, it should take it up with Mr Simpson; (ii)It was only after proceedings were issued that their position shifted and they denied being in possession of the Wellington House Works; (iii)Mr D’Aguanno and Ms Muller had the opportunity to copy or remove files as they both gave notice to leave over the Christmas period when Mr and Mrs Padalino were away from the office and there were few employees around; (iv)There were sketches of Wellington House on the Third Defendant’s website at