Claim No: IP-2021-000080 - [2024] EWHC 396 (IPEC)

Mr Reed KC appeared for the Claimants and Mr Harris of Dehns for the Defendants.

In addition to the written skeleton arguments, during the hearing I requested supplemental material from the Defendants’ representatives as there was not time during the hearing to understand the basis for the Defendants’ application to adduce additional evidence, or the scope of the evidence for which leave was sought. The Defendants provided their comments by letter on 23 January. Mr Reed provided a short note in reply on 24 January.

During the hearing I also asked for clarification as to the scope of the material which the Defendants regarded as benefitting from an exception to the without prejudice rule. In correspondence on 18 January and 9 February, Dehns confirmed that the Defendants no longer sought to rely on any exception for certain paragraphs of Mr Land’s witness statement or the documents referred to in those paragraphs. Those paragraphs are to be redacted and I have not considered them further.

The Defendants suggested that further submissions might be needed on points which, it was said, had become apparent only during the hearing, essentially in respect of the scope of Issue 5b and evidence relevant to it. This is discussed further below.

I am grateful to both advocates for their assistance. I am also appreciative of the marked-up copies of the evidence of Mr Land and Mr Gowland prepared by Howes Percival and attached to the Fifth Witness Statement of Ms Steggles, and the post hearing materials provided by Dehns. However, the complexity and number of the points made, the references to multiple pleadings and amended pleadings, and the multiple references during the hearing to specific paragraphs of evidence meant that a transcript would have been of significant benefit when preparing the judgment.