MPT Group Ltd v Peel & Ors [2017] EWHC 1222 (Ch) (16 May 2017)

MPT Group Ltd v Peel & Ors [2017] EWHC 1222 (Ch) (16 May 2017)

Claimant established a prima facie case of breach of duty and some misuse of confidential information, but evidence supports defendants' claim of independent design except for minor admitted use. Springboard advantage, if any, unlikely to persist beyond 12 months post-employment. Interim injunction not justified for full period sought; damages likely inadequate but balance of convenience does not favour full relief.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1222 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: MPT Group Limited; First Defendant: Shaun William Peel; Second Defendant: Michael Alan Birtwistle; Third Defendant: MattressTek Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application in Civil Proceedings / Post Hearing, Judgment on Interim Relief
Outcome
Interim injunction refused for full period sought; limited relief granted pending speedy trial.
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Springboard Injunctions, Restrictive Covenants, Copyright Infringement, Database Rights, Economic Torts, Duty of Fidelity
Employment Law Intellectual Property Commercial Law Breach of Confidence Springboard Injunctions Restrictive Covenants Copyright Infringement Database Rights +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MPT Group Limited

Claimant

Shaun William Peel

First Defendant

Michael Alan Birtwistle

Second Defendant

MattressTek Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application in Civil Proceedings / Post Hearing, Judgment on Interim Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants breached contractual and equitable duties by copying and misusing confidential information
  2. 2 Whether defendants infringed copyright and database rights
  3. 3 Whether springboard relief is justified

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant established a prima facie case of breach of duty and some misuse of confidential information, but evidence supports defendants' claim of independent design except for minor admitted use. Springboard advantage, if any, unlikely to persist beyond 12 months post-employment. Interim injunction not justified for full period sought; damages likely inadequate but balance of convenience does not favour full relief.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction refused for full period sought; limited relief granted pending speedy trial.

Orders

  • Defendants prohibited from soliciting, dealing or contracting with named customers and suppliers until further order.
  • Defendants prohibited from disclosing or using claimant's confidential information until trial.