Armstrong Watson Llp v Person(s) Unknown [2023] EWHC 762 (KB) (31 March 2023)

Armstrong Watson Llp v Person(s) Unknown [2023] EWHC 762 (KB) (31 March 2023)

The court granted the interim injunction without notice and in private because there was a real and ongoing risk that notifying the defendants would trigger dissemination of confidential information, defeating the purpose of the application. The claimant established a strong prima facie case for breach of confidence, blackmail, and related torts. The balance of convenience and risk of irreparable harm justified prohibitory and mandatory orders, including delivery up or destruction of the information. Alternative service and service out of the jurisdiction were permitted due to the unknown identity and location of the defendants. Article 10 rights were not engaged or, if engaged, were...

Citation
[2023] EWHC 762 (KB)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Armstrong Watson LLP; Defendant(s)/respondent(s): Person(s) Unknown responsible for obtaining data from the Applicant's IT systems on or about 28 February to 6 March 2023 and/or who has disclosed or is intending or threatening to disclose the information thereby obtained
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application (ex Parte, Without Notice) / First Instance, Urgent Application Before High Court (king's Bench Division)
Outcome
Interim injunction granted (without notice, in private)
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Interim Injunctions, Blackmail, Alternative Service, Mandatory Injunctions, Privacy, Misuse of Private Information, Jurisdiction, Non Disclosure Orders
Civil Procedure Media Law Privacy Law Tort Law Breach of Confidence Interim Injunctions Blackmail Alternative Service +5 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 7 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Armstrong Watson LLP

Claimant/applicant

Person(s) Unknown responsible for obtaining data from the Applicant's IT systems on or about 28 February to 6 March 2023 and/or who has disclosed or is intending or threatening to disclose the information thereby obtained

Defendant(s)/respondent(s)

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application (ex Parte, Without Notice) / First Instance, Urgent Application Before High Court (king's Bench Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim injunction should be granted without notice to restrain publication or disclosure of confidential information unlawfully obtained from the claimant's IT systems
  2. 2 Whether the hearing should be held in private
  3. 3 Whether alternative service and service out of the jurisdiction should be permitted

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted the interim injunction without notice and in private because there was a real and ongoing risk that notifying the defendants would trigger dissemination of confidential information, defeating the purpose of the application. The claimant established a strong prima facie case for breach of confidence, blackmail, and related torts. The balance of convenience and risk of irreparable harm justified prohibitory and mandatory orders, including delivery up or destruction of the information. Alternative service and service out of the jurisdiction were permitted due to the unknown identity and location of the defendants. Article 10 rights were not engaged or, if engaged, were...

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted (without notice, in private)

Orders

  • Prohibitory injunction restraining publication or communication of confidential information unlawfully obtained from the claimant's IT systems
  • Mandatory injunction requiring defendants to deliver up, delete, or destroy the confidential information and provide a witness statement confirming compliance