Kingspan Group Plc & Anor v Rockwool Ltd (on declarations)

Declaratory relief must be assessed separately for each declaration. The court should consider justice to the claimant and defendant, whether the declaration serves a useful purpose, and any special reasons for granting or refusing it. A declaration should not be made if, when detached from the judgment’s reasoning and qualifications, it may mislead, confuse or create a false impression. This is especially important where declarations concerning fire-safety testing may be used in comparative marketing. The court may grant a carefully framed declaration reflecting a specific finding, but should refuse declarations that are broad, imprecise or liable to suggest that an unsuitable test is generally appropriate.

These proceedings concerned competing building-material manufacturers and comparative advertising involving fire tests conducted or demonstrated using ISO 9705. Rockwool sought further declarations concerning the meaning of its road-show demonstrations, the possible use of ISO 9705 testing for Kingspan’s KS1000 MR product, comparisons between products, compliance of tests with the ISO 9705 method, and Rockwool’s good faith.

The court had previously found that ISO 9705 was unsuitable for evaluating non-surface products such as TR26 and K11, that certain tests were not conducted in accordance with the method, and that Rockwool had acted in good faith. The issue was whether further declarations should be made without creating a misleading or confusing impression.

1. Jurisdiction and governing approach. The court had jurisdiction to grant binding declarations under CPR 40.20. In exercising that discretion, it was required to have regard to section 49(2) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, including the objective of finally determining matters in dispute and avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. The relevant considerations included justice to both parties, whether the declaration would serve a useful purpose, and any special reasons for granting or refusing it, following Financial Services Authority v Rourke t/a J.E. Rourke & Co. [2002] CP Rep 14.
2. Each declaration had to be considered separately. A declaration should not be made where, stripped of its context, it might mislead or confuse the market. This consideration had particular force in litigation concerning the fire safety of building materials and declarations intended for marketing purposes.
3. The declarations sought in paragraphs 4 to 6 were refused. The proposed declarations concerning the road-show demonstrations, possible conclusions from ISO 9705 tests on KS1000 MR, and comparison of Europanel Lite with KS1000 MR were too broad, imprecise, insufficiently qualified or liable to suggest that ISO 9705 was generally suitable for products for which it was not intended. The court also found that the actual KS1000 MR tests did not provide a fair comparison because the product had been installed on the ceiling as well as the walls.
4. The declaration sought in paragraph 7 was granted in an appropriate form. The court had found that the tests on TR26 and K11 were not conducted in accordance with the ISO 9705 method, whereas the KS1000 MR tests were. A declaration reflecting that finding would not be misleading.
5. The declaration sought in paragraph 8 was granted. The court had found that Rockwool acted throughout in good faith and without improper motive in relation to the First and Second Videos. Clarifying that position would serve a useful purpose in the market and was in the interests of justice.

First-instance decision. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.