Cranford Community College v Cranford College Ltd
2014
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
- HIS HONOUR JUDGE HACON
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Intellectual Property Law
2014
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
At a case management conference in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC), His Honour Judge Hacon addressed whether the Civil Procedure Rules require disclosure reports in IPEC. The Claimant sought an unless order to strike out the Defence and enter judgment unless the Defendant served a disclosure report within three days, invoking CPR 31.5(3). The judge reviewed CPR 31.5(2), which generally mandates disclosure reports in multi-track cases, noting that IPEC claims (other than small claims) are multi-track. However, he emphasized that CPR 63.24(2) disapplies the standard disclosure provisions in CPR Part 31 for IPEC and that Practice Direction 63 paragraph 29.1 permits only specific disclosure. Relying also on the White Book note (31.5.1) and CPR 31.5(7)(e), the court concluded CPR 31.5 does not apply in IPEC, so no obligation to serve disclosure reports exists.
Judgment
Judge Hacon :
An issue on disclosure has arisen in a case management conference before me today. The Claimant seeks an unless order to deal with the Defendant having declined to serve a disclosure report pursuant to CPR rule 31.5 (3), i.e. an order that the Defence is struck out and judgment entered in favour of the Claimant unless the Defendant serves a disclosure report within 3 days.
Disclosure reports were introduced into civil litigation by the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013 as part of the significant reforms as to costs. The relevant rules came into force on 1 April 2013. CPR rule 31.5 (2) states that paragraphs (3) to (8) of CPR rule 31.(5) , which set out the detailed requirements relating to disclosure reports, apply to all multi-track claims other than those which include a claim for personal injuries.
Claims in this court, other than those allocated to the small claims track, are multi-track claims. On the other hand, CPR 63.24 (2), which pre-dates CPR 31.5 (2), states that the provisions on standard disclosure in CPR Part 31 did not apply in the Patents County Court and thus since 1 October 2013 they do not apply in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court. The question is whether the general requirement of CPR 31.5 (2), that disclosure reports should be provided in all multi-track claims, applies in the IPEC.
In my judgment it does not. The rules on disclosure reports are part of the rules on standard disclosure as is made explicit in the final sentence of the note explaining them in the White Book at 31.5.1. This is reinforced by the possibility provided for in CPR 31.5 (7)(e) that a court may order that a party gives standard disclosure as one of the options under new rules. That possibility is not consistent with paragraph 29.1 of Practice Direction 63 which permits the IPEC to order only specific disclosure, if disclosure is to be ordered at all.
Consequently CPR 31.5 does not apply in the IPEC in its current form any more than it did in the old form. There is no obligation to provide disclosure reports in the IPEC.