Claim No: IP-2023-000087 - [2024] EWHC 2947 (IPEC)

Most of the following facts were not contested, although their impact was. I set out below my factual findings, indicating where a matter was contested.

From 2017, Ms Thurgood operated a dog grooming business called SCRUFFY2FLUFFY. There was some dispute as to where that business operated, but it does not matter for present purposes. That business paused operation in or around April 2018 due to the injury of the business’s dog groomer.

On 11 June 2018, Ms Laight responded to a job advertisement posted by Ms Thurgood’s business. At the time, Ms Laight was operating as a dog groomer from her home. As I have already said, the advertisement was titled Self Employed Mobile Dog Grooming Partner. Ms Laight responded first in writing, before meeting with Mr Bob Thurgood and Mr Jim Thurgood, both of whom worked in Ms Thurgood’s business. There were some further meetings, including with Ms Thurgood, and it was agreed that Ms Laight would start working for Ms Thurgood’s business as a dog groomer. Ms Laight was engaged as an independent contractor. As noted above, at the time, Ms Thurgood’s business was trading as SCRUFFY2FLUFFY.

On 3 July 2018, Ms Thurgood purchased a mobile dog grooming van with registration number WG57 DOG. The van had been purchased from an entity which had been trading as WASH WIGGLE & WAG near Northampton. Ms Thurgood gave evidence that the owners of the van did not wish to trade as WASH WIGGLE & WAG any longer, and were happy for her to use that name.

Ms Thurgood said that, as WASH WIGGLE & WAG was already printed on the side of the van, it was then adopted, alongside SCRUFFY2FLUFFY, as a name for the dog grooming business. Ms Laight gave evidence that this was only done to save money. I do not consider it matters – what is clear to me is that Ms Thurgood’s business started using WASH WIGGLE & WAG thereafter in various ways, including on the side of the van.

Thereafter, Ms Laight used the van to provide dog grooming services on behalf of Ms Thurgood. This was done by dog owners contacting the business, often in response to advertisements, or following word-of-mouth referrals (and re-bookings). This appears to have been mostly by telephone, with calls answered by Mr Bob Thurgood or Mr Jim Thurgood. Ms Thurgood gave evidence that she largely left the administrative side of the business to them. Mr Bob Thurgood or Mr Jim Thurgood would then book each groom in a calendar, to which Ms Laight also had access. Ms Laight would attend and groom the dog, then take payment, usually in cash. Ms Laight would record the number of grooms in a hand-written timesheet, which she would submit weekly. The timesheets, which were in evidence before me, show the number of grooms each day, the total received for those grooms and Ms Laight’s fixed fee per groom. Ms Laight usually deducted any expenses (petrol, shampoo, muzzles, towels, bows), giving a total for the money to be given by Ms Laight to Ms Thurgood at the end of each week.

The van provided a mobile grooming salon. It would usually park near the customer’s home, and be connected to mains electricity. The dog was then groomed in or near the van.

As noted above, Ms Laight received an additional fee for any customers she introduced to the business. Thus, it was in her interests to promote the business. She did this in part by setting up and operating a Facebook page and an Instagram page to promote the business. Ms Thurgood gave evidence that she did not engage with social media, and was happy for Ms Laight to do this on behalf of the business.

Things went well for approximately 18 months – customers were happy with Ms Laight’s grooming, and both Ms Laight and Ms Thurgood appear to have been happy with the arrangement. Ms Laight carried out approximately 2,600 grooms in this time. Ms Laight says that from time to time she asked for a formal written contract to record the arrangement. Mr Bob Thurgood and Ms Thurgood do not recall these requests, but it does not matter for present purposes. Ms Thurgood’s dog grooming business had approximately 838 customers, of whom 700 were regular/return customers, many of whom booked repeat grooms at 6 to 8 week intervals. All customers were within 30 miles of Redditch. Reviews on various websites were positive.

There was an issue between the parties as to a tracker which had been put into the van at the request of Ms Thurgood, and with Ms Laight’s knowledge. The tracker was provided by a business in which Ms Laight’s father was involved, and provided weekly email reports to Mr Bob Thurgood showing the whereabouts of the van.

The evidence before me of the use of the WASH WIGGLE & WAG name to promote Ms Thurgood’s business was as follows:

The business relationship broke down in or about May 2020. The Thurgoods had become concerned that Ms Laight was taking “off-book” appointments – that is, undertaking mobile grooms in the course of her work, but not accounting to Ms Thurgood for the money paid by customers. Mr Bob Thurgood asked Ms Laight to return the van. Ms Laight declined to do so, but said that it could be collected from outside her home. On collecting the van on 22 May 2020, Ms Thurgood found a letter of resignation from Ms Laight. Ms Laight had also emptied the van of any shampoo, muzzles, towels, restraining equipment or other fungibles. She had, quite rightly, retained her own scissors and clippers.

The van tracker was deactivated at about this time.

Seven days later, on 29 May 2020, Ms Laight incorporated WWW Limited. Ms Laight is, and has at all material times since its incorporation been, its controlling shareholder.

I should add at this point that Ms Laight suggested at trial, apparently for the first time, that she had been undertaking “independent” (her word) grooms at her house whilst working for Ms Thurgood’s business. This appeared to be news to Ms Thurgood. When I asked Ms Laight whether these were offered under WASH WIGGLE & WAG or some other brand prior to her resignation, her answer was equivocal. Having heard and seen Ms Laight give evidence, and taking into account her evidence and her submissions, it seems to me more likely than not that Ms Laight was not conducting grooms at her home under the name WASH WIGGLE & WAG prior to her departure from Ms Thurgood’s business.

Having set up WWW Limited, Ms Laight commenced trading in dog grooming as WASH WIGGLE & WAG. She registered the domain name www.washwigglewag.co.uk (which no longer appears to be operational). At the time, the website included the following text:

“My name is Danni and I own Wash Wiggle & Wag Ltd. I have been running a mobile dog grooming service for over four years.”

It will be recalled that Ms Laight had control of the Facebook and Instagram pages for Ms Thurgood’s business. She chose not to provide passwords etc to Ms Thurgood. Rather, she adopted these pages as her own, and began using them to promote her new dog grooming business under the name WASH WIGGLE & WAG.

On 4 June 2020, Ms Laight published on the Ms Thurgood’s former Facebook page the following:

“URGENT

After receiving calls from customers it seems the van I was previously using is back in action and covering Solihull areas with a ‘new groomer’ the owners Robert, Jim and Laura thurgood are pretending I am turning up for grooms, then leaving customers no choice with a new groomer on their doorstep.

As a result of this I have had injured dogs owners on the phone with large vets Bill’s now needing to be paid. THIS IS NOT ME AND NO LONGER WORK WITH THEM! [folded hands emoji]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE only use my number and my name if you are wanting to book with me. I am on Instagram, facebook, yell this is just one result on day 1 of their new business venture and will be making sure my name ‘Wash Wiggle & wag’ is no longer used by them.”

Ms Laight gave evidence that it was a mistake for this to be published on Ms Thurgood’s SCRUFFY2FLUFFY Facebook page – caused by a 24-hour security delay in transferring the page from SCRUFFY2FLUFFY to Ms Laight’s new business. She had meant for it to be published only once the page had been transferred to her new business. I do not consider that that matters for present purposes. Identical text was placed on Ms Laight’s Instagram page. Ms Laight also sent an SMS message to various of Ms Thurgood’s clients in similar terms, but with the following text added at the end:

“As Most of you know im temporarily working from home while my new van is being converted please contact me for a appointments. I will be mobile by july.”

I should also record that following her departure from Ms Thurgood’s business, Ms Laight retained some £4,000 which she had collected from customers of Ms Thurgood’s business. Eventually, HHJ Hacon ordered Ms Laight to pay that money to Ms Thurgood, which she did.

Ms Thurgood said that her business deteriorated rapidly during June and July 2020.

Some weeks after Ms Laight’s resignation, on or about 27 July 2020, the van tracker was re-activated, and Mr Bob Thurgood once against began receiving emails listing the whereabouts of the tracker. At this point, it was not in Ms Thurgood’s van, which, as noted above, had been returned. Rather, it appeared to Mr Bob Thurgood to show Ms Laight visiting customers of Ms Thurgood’s business. Ms Laight’s evidence was that she had taken with her on resignation the contact details of approximately 250 customers of Ms Thurgood’s business, whom Ms Laight then contacted. There was clear evidence before me that (former) customers of Ms Thurgood’s business used Ms Laight’s services offered under WWW Limited.

On 14 September 2020, Ms Thurgood sent a text message to existing customers offering free grooms, to encourage more trade. Shortly thereafter, Ms Thurgood decided to abandon dog grooming under the sign WASH WIGGLE & WAG.

Ms Laight raised other issues, including in her questioning of Ms Thurgood and Mr Bob Thurgood. I do not need to deal here with all the issues she raised, but I consider the following to be irrelevant to the issues I must decide: