Lifestyle Equities v Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club: witness evidence survives strike-out bid
LIFESTYLE EQUITIES C.VvROYAL COUNTY OF BERKSHIRE POLO CLUB
- Court
- High Court
- Judgment
- 25 May 2022
- Citation
- [2022] EWHC 1244 (Ch)
Witness statements from experienced trade staff about market conditions can usually stand without a formal expert report.
Lifestyle Equities, owner of BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB, tried to strike out parts of two witness statements filed by Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club in their trademark dispute. The High Court refused, ruling the material was proper trade evidence, not expert evidence.
What happened
Lifestyle Equities sued Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club for trademark infringement over rival polo-branded clothing, in a dispute spanning the UK and several overseas territories. Before the trial, Lifestyle Equities applied to strike out large sections of two of the defendant's witness statements. It argued the statements breached Practice Direction 57AC, the rule governing how witness statements must be prepared, because they contained improper opinion or undisclosed expert evidence about market conditions and how the two brands had co-existed in various overseas markets.
What did the court decide in LIFESTYLE EQUITIES C.V v ROYAL COUNTY OF BERKSHIRE POLO CLUB?
The court dismissed the application. It held that Practice Direction 57AC does not change the long-standing rule that people experienced in a trade can give factual evidence, sometimes including opinion, about how that trade works, known as trade evidence. This principle was confirmed in an earlier case, Fenty v Arcadia. The court rejected Lifestyle Equities' argument that a provision of the Civil Evidence Act 1972 undermined that earlier ruling. The challenged passages came from witnesses with direct trade experience and did not need to comply with the formal expert evidence rules in CPR Part 35.
What we learned from this
- What I'd take from this is that a business defending a trademark claim doesn't automatically need to pay for a formal expert report just because its witnesses are describing how a market works. If the witness is genuinely experienced in that trade, their account of market conditions or how brands have coexisted can count as ordinary factual evidence. Make sure witness statements stick to what the witness actually knows from their own trade experience, not broader opinions dressed up as fact. Don't expect a strike-out application to succeed against evidence that is properly grounded in trade experience, even if the other side calls it opinion.
Things to be aware of
- This was a procedural ruling at a pre-trial review, not a decision on whether the trademark was actually infringed or valid. The underlying dispute continued.
The businesses involved
LIFESTYLE EQUITIES C.V
Claimant and owner of the BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB brand, which it has pursued in multiple trademark infringement actions over rival polo-themed clothing marks.
ROYAL COUNTY OF BERKSHIRE POLO CLUB LTD
Incorporated in England in 1985 and still active, based in London. Operates a working polo club near Windsor, Berkshire, hosting tournaments including the Prince's Trophy, and holds 13 trademarks on the UK trademark register.
- Companies House
- 01903088 Active
- Incorporated
- April 1985
- Registered office
- London
- Business activity
- Operation of sports facilities
- UK trademarks
- 13
How we can help
If something in this case sounds familiar, talk it through with us. The first call is free for new clients.
This page is for information purposes only and does not constitute trademark advice or guidance. Summary drafted with AI assistance from the published judgment and checked by The Trademark Helpline (how we write these). Judgment: [2022] EWHC 1244 (Ch) on Find Case Law, published under the Open Justice Licence. Company details from Companies House; trademark counts from the UK trademark register. Last reviewed 27 October 2026. Report an error.
