Illiquidx Ltd v Altana Wealth Ltd [2022] EWHC 126 (Ch) (17 January 2022)

Illiquidx Ltd v Altana Wealth Ltd [2022] EWHC 126 (Ch) (17 January 2022)

Permission to amend was properly refused for allegations relating to the 'Big Idea' due to lack of intelligibility and particularity, but granted for amendments relating to the 'Detail' and misuse, subject to conditions that references to 'without prejudice to generality' are deleted and claimant confirms no other...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 126 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Illiquidx Limited; First Defendant/respondent: Altana Wealth Limited; Second Defendant/respondent: Lee Robinson; Third Defendant/respondent: Steffen Kastner; Fourth Defendant/respondent: Brevent Advisory Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal of Permission to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; permission to amend granted for 'Detail' and misuse allegations, refused for 'Big Idea'.
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Trade Secrets, Amendment of Pleadings, Misuse of Confidential Information, Non Disclosure Agreements
Commercial Law Equity Intellectual Property Breach of Confidence Trade Secrets Amendment of Pleadings Misuse of Confidential Information Non Disclosure Agreements

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Illiquidx Limited

Claimant/appellant

Altana Wealth Limited

First Defendant/respondent

Lee Robinson

Second Defendant/respondent

Steffen Kastner

Third Defendant/respondent

Brevent Advisory Limited

Fourth Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal of Permission to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed amendments to particulars of claim sufficiently particularise confidential information and misuse
  2. 2 Whether permission to amend should be granted for allegations relating to 'Big Idea', 'Detail', and misuse
  3. 3 Whether the Master erred in refusing permission to amend

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to amend was properly refused for allegations relating to the 'Big Idea' due to lack of intelligibility and particularity, but granted for amendments relating to the 'Detail' and misuse, subject to conditions that references to 'without prejudice to generality' are deleted and claimant confirms no other passages are relied upon as confidential.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; permission to amend granted for 'Detail' and misuse allegations, refused for 'Big Idea'.

Orders

  • Permission to amend ACA1 and ACA5 granted for 'Detail', subject to deletion of 'without prejudice to generality' and confirmation of specific passages relied upon.
  • Permission to amend allegations of misuse in paragraphs 28 and 28A granted for 'Detail', subject to redrafting to omit references to 'Big Idea' and to state particulars of misuse relied upon at present.