Leeds Plywood & Doors Limited v Deanta UK Limited

Witness evidence should set out facts within the witness’s knowledge. Commentary on an opponent’s documents, design features and correspondence is ordinarily submission rather than evidence and carries no evidential weight. It may therefore be struck out where an application is made and the pleading does not require it.

Specific disclosure must be defined with sufficient precision and assessed for relevance, burden and proportionality. An application made shortly before trial may be refused where further searching would generate satellite disputes and delay the trial. The court may nevertheless order limited disclosure of native documents where the task appears proportionate, subject to permission to apply if compliance proves disproportionately burdensome.

The claimant brought intellectual property proceedings concerning the defendant’s alleged copying of door designs. Before trial, the defendant applied to strike out substantial parts of the claimant’s managing director’s witness statement, principally on the ground that they commented on disclosed documents and alleged further copying outside the pleaded case.

The claimant separately sought specific disclosure relating to documents reproduced in an annex to the defence and counterclaim, including design-development material, communications and native versions of selected images. The court determined both interlocutory applications shortly before the scheduled trial.

1. Witness evidence. Paragraphs 29–49 of the claimant’s witness statement were struck out. They commented on the defendant’s documents, design processes and technical features, rather than stating facts within the witness’s knowledge. Such material was more appropriate for a skeleton argument or submissions. Paragraph 50 was retained as factual evidence, while paragraphs 51–53 were struck out. Paragraphs 52 and 53 also introduced alleged earlier copying which was not clearly pleaded and was insufficiently particularised. Paragraphs 54 and 55 were retained.
2. The second and third sentences of paragraph 16 of the defendant’s witness statement were also struck out because they commented on copying outside the pleaded case. Other challenged comments concerning the market and the defendant’s documents were retained.
3. Specific disclosure. The claimant’s original application for documents related to Annex 4 was too wide and vague. Several categories later advanced in argument were also impermissibly broad and amounted to a fishing expedition.
4. The court considered the defendant’s existing searches, the explanation that the design was based on existing acoustic wall panels, the absence of further relevant documents, the proximity of trial and the risk of extensive satellite disputes. Balancing those factors, no further general disclosure order was made. The claimant remained entitled to invite the trial court to draw inferences concerning independent creation from any inadequacy in the disclosure.
5. Limited native disclosure was ordered for the image of door 48, the development material for design 48, and two technical drawings. The defendant was given permission to apply if extracting the native files proved a disproportionately burdensome task.