Court denies amendment in database rights dispute

Introduction

The High Court has dismissed an appeal by Codeberry Limited and Lee Paul Smith to amend their defences in a case involving alleged infringement of database rights and copyright by IDDQD Limited. The appeal was heard by His Honour Judge Hacon, following an order by Master Pester that refused permission for the defendants to amend their defence to include claims of waiver, consent, and laches.

Background

The case involves two joined claims with overlapping facts, one brought by IDDQD Limited and the other by Royal Mail Group Limited (RMG). The defendants, Codeberry Limited and its director, Lee Paul Smith, were accused of providing search and verification services by unlawfully copying a database owned by IDDQD. The defendants sought to amend their defence to include claims of estoppel, waiver, and laches, arguing that IDDQD had been aware of their activities since 2015 and had implicitly consented to them.

The Proposed Amendments

The defendants proposed to amend their defence by adding paragraphs that suggested IDDQD had waived its rights or consented to the alleged infringements due to its inaction over several years. They also argued that IDDQD’s delay in asserting its rights barred it from seeking equitable relief due to laches. However, the Master found these amendments to be late and unsupported by sufficient evidence.

Legal Framework

The court considered the principles for amending pleadings, as outlined in CPR 17.3, which grants the court broad discretion to allow amendments. The court must balance the injustice to the applicant if the amendment is refused against the injustice to the opposing party if it is allowed. The timing of the application and the potential disruption to the trial date are critical factors in this assessment.

Judgment of Master Pester

Master Pester refused the amendments, citing their lateness and the lack of a coherent and properly particularised pleading. He noted that allowing the amendments would require further disclosure and evidence, potentially jeopardising the trial date. The Master also found that the defendants’ evidence did not support a prima facie case of estoppel, waiver, or laches.

Appeal Grounds

The defendants appealed on several grounds, arguing that the Master had erred in his assessment of the evidence and the legal requirements for laches. They contended that the proposed amendments were crucial to their defence and that any delay was attributable to the court’s timetable.

Court’s Decision

Judge Hacon upheld the Master’s decision, finding no merit in the defendants’ grounds of appeal. He agreed that the evidence did not support the proposed defences and that the amendments were too late to be allowed without disrupting the trial. The judge emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural obligations to ensure efficient litigation.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed, with the court affirming the Master’s exercise of discretion. The decision underscores the challenges of amending pleadings late in the litigation process, particularly when the amendments lack sufficient evidential support.

Learn More

For more information on data protection, see BeCivil’s guide to English Data Protection Law.

Read the Guide