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

Ms Thurgood relied on two witness statements: her own, and one from her father, Mr Robert Thurgood (also called Bob) (Mr Bob Thurgood). Both Ms Thurgood and Mr Bob Thurgood were cross-examined by Ms Laight. They gave their evidence in a straight-forward way, clearly doing their best to assist the Court. No criticism was made of the way in which they gave evidence. Mr Bob Thurgood told the Court that he uses a hearing aid: I was satisfied that he heard the questions put to him and was able to answer them. I accept their evidence.

A short statement was also submitted from Ms Thurgood’s uncle (Mr Bob Thurgood’s brother) Mr James Thurgood (also called Jim) (Mr Jim Thurgood). No permission was sought or given for this statement, and Mr Jim Thurgood was not cross-examined. I have therefore given no weight to the contents of this document, although it would not have altered my findings had I done so.

The Defendants relied on a witness statement from Ms Laight, who was cross-examined. It was suggested that I should treat Ms Laight’s testimony with some care, and prefer Ms Thurgood’s version of events where there was conflict. I accept that submission. Having watched and listened to Ms Laight carefully as she gave her oral testimony, she was in my judgment at times evasive. When confronted with questions the answer to which ran contrary to her version of events, she often paused, or asked for the question to be repeated. Sometimes this was followed by an answer that did not, in fact, address the question asked. Ms Laight’s version of events from the witness box was not always clear. I have set out below my findings of fact which differ at points from Ms Laight’s version of events. From that it will be clear that, where Ms Laight’s version of events differed from the written record, I prefer the version set out in the contemporaneous documents.

The Defendants also relied on letters written by dog grooming customers which could best be described as character references. The Defendants did not have permission for any further witness statements, so I have not taken these into account (including because their authors were not cross-examined), but it would not have made any difference to my conclusions had I done so.