Case No. IP-2018-000200

23.Aside from its defences to Mr Penhallurick’s claims referred to above, MD5 runs a defence of estoppel. Its case is that Mr Penhallurick made repeated representations to MD5 that MD5 owned the VFC software, that MD5 acted in reliance on those representations to its detriment by compensating Mr Penhallurick above his standard remuneration, by allowing Mr Penhallurick to work on the VFC software instead of forensic analysis and other duties and by incurring expense in the marketing of the software. Mr Penhallurick is now estopped from denying MD5’s title to the software. Alternatively Mr Penhallurick represented that he was developing the software in the course of his employment by MD5 and is now estopped from contending otherwise. 24.Mr Penhallurick denies making any such representations and all other elements of MD5’s case on estoppel; MD5 was at all times aware that Mr Penhallurick owned the software.