IP-2024-000057 - [2025] EWHC 1687 (IPEC)

The parties each had one witness of fact. Chistopher Cooke is the Managing Director of JGL, Matthew Walker is a director of Autochair and one of the named inventors in the Patent. Mr Cooke was mildly criticised in closing but overall he gave his evidence fairly. Mr Walker was not cross-examined.

JGL’s expert witness was Oliver Shaw who is an engineer in the automotive sector of industry. Mr Shaw also lectures in mechanical engineering at the University of Bolton and has a consultancy business.

Autochair’s expert was Mark Hibbert. Mr Hibbert is Technical Installations Manager at a company called Mobility in Motion Limited, a company in the same group as Autochair. Mr Hibbert has worked with mobility aids, including hoists, for over 25 years and has fitted over 3000 hoists. He also repaired hoists and checked fitting done by others.

Car hoists for wheelchairs and mobility scooters is a fairly narrow field. It seems that the parties were faced with having to choose between an expert close to home or one with broad engineering expertise but little or no direct experience in working with the relevant type of hoist. Autochair went for the former, JGL the latter.

Autochair submitted that Mr Shaw’s evidence could carry little weight relative to that of Mr Hibbert because of Mr Hibbert’s greater experience with relevant hoists. JGL criticised Mr Hibbert for downplaying his association with Autochair in his report and submitted that he was plainly a biased witness.

There was possibly something in both criticisms. Mr Hibbert undoubtedly knew more about hoists of the relevant type than did Mr Shaw, but I agree with JGL that he showed signs of loyalty to his boss for 20 years and current de facto boss, Mr Walker, who is a director of Autochair and the sole director of the company for which Mr Hibbert works. An example was Mr Hibbert’s reluctance to accept that screws used in wheels of HGVs can sometimes come loose over time, which seems a likely possibility since, as was pointed out to him, they are designed to signal where this has happened.

Mr Shaw’s expertise was more general than that of Mr Hibbert and he seemed occasionally reluctant to make what seemed to be appropriate concessions. For the most part, though, his reasoning was sound and I see no cause for rejecting his evidence because of his lack of direct experience with hoists.

Both Mr Hibbert and Mr Shaw provided useful evidence.