Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2017] All ER (D) 42 (Jun)
Neutral Citation: [2017] EWHC 1222 (Ch)
Court: Chancery Division, Manchester District Registry
Judge:

Edward Pepperall QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Representation Tina Ranales-Cotos (instructed by Weightmans LLP) for MPT.
  Kelly Pennifer (instructed by Shoosmiths LLP) for the defendants.
Judgment Dates: 16 May 2017

Catchwords

Injunction - Interim - Prohibition of use of information - First and second defendants working for claimant company - Company producing mattresses - First and second defendants leaving claimant to establish third defendant company - Third defendant also producing mattresses - Claimant making application for, among other things, interim injunction prohibiting defendants from soliciting, dealing with or contacting its named customers and suppliers and unlimited injunction prohibiting defendants from disclosing or using its confidential information - Whether 'springboard' relief should be granted.

The Case

Injunction Interim. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant company's application for, among other things, an interim injunction prohibiting the defendants from dealing with its named customers and suppliers and an unlimited injunction preventing the defendants from using or disclosing its confidential information. While, on the evidence, there was a serious issue to be tried, the case was largely built on inference and did not establish that the claimant was likely to establish sufficient misuse of its data to justify granting a 'springboard' injunction at trial.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.