Cranford Community College v Cranford College Ltd

[2014] EWHC 349 (IPEC)

Case details

Case citations
[2014] EWHC 349 (IPEC)
Court
High Court (Intellectual Property Enterprise Court)
Judgment date
17 February 2014
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Civil procedure Disclosure Intellectual property litigation
Keywords
disclosure report standard disclosure specific disclosure Intellectual Property Enterprise Court CPR Part 31 CPR rule 31.5 CPR 63.24(2) Practice Direction 63
Outcome
application dismissed
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

In the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, the disclosure-report provisions in CPR rule 31.5 do not apply. Although IPEC claims are generally multi-track claims, CPR 63.24(2) excludes Part 31 provisions on standard disclosure. The disclosure-report requirements form part of that standard-disclosure regime. Their application would also conflict with paragraph 29.1 of Practice Direction 63, under which the IPEC may order specific disclosure, but not standard disclosure. Accordingly, parties in IPEC proceedings have no obligation to provide disclosure reports under CPR rule 31.5.

Factual background

At a case management conference, the claimant sought an unless order requiring the defendant to serve a disclosure report under CPR rule 31.5(3), failing which the defence would be struck out and judgment entered for the claimant. The issue was whether the general requirement for disclosure reports in multi-track claims applied to proceedings in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, given the specific exclusion of Part 31 provisions by CPR 63.24(2).

Held

  1. The application for an unless order was refused. The defendant was not required to serve a disclosure report.
  2. CPR rule 31.5(2) provides that the disclosure-report provisions in paragraphs (3) to (8) apply to multi-track claims, subject to stated exceptions. IPEC claims, other than small claims, are multi-track claims.
  3. Nevertheless, CPR 63.24(2) provides that the provisions on standard disclosure in CPR Part 31 do not apply in the IPEC. The disclosure-report provisions are part of the rules on standard disclosure. This is made explicit by the explanatory note to CPR rule 31.5.
  4. The structure of CPR rule 31.5 supports that conclusion. Rule 31.5(7)(e) permits the court to order standard disclosure as one of the available disclosure options. That is inconsistent with paragraph 29.1 of Practice Direction 63, which permits the IPEC to order specific disclosure only, if disclosure is ordered.
  5. CPR rule 31.5 therefore did not apply in its current form any more than it applied in its previous form. There was no obligation to provide disclosure reports in the IPEC.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.