Kieran Corrigan & Co Ltd v Timol [2024] EWCA Civ 1233 (18 October 2024)

Kieran Corrigan & Co Ltd v Timol [2024] EWCA Civ 1233 (18 October 2024)

A director is not personally liable for breach of confidence unless he uses the confidential information himself; mere approval of acts by others, without use or knowledge, does not suffice. The appeal failed as the judge found Mr. Timol did not use the information when approving the structure. Fresh evidence did not warrant a retrial as it would not have changed the outcome.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Civ 1233
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Kieran Corrigan & Co Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Bashir Timol
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Liability, With Quantum Phase Completed
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Director Liability, Non Disclosure Agreement, Accessory Liability, Fresh Evidence on Appeal
Equity Commercial Law Confidential Information Breach of Confidence Director Liability Non Disclosure Agreement Accessory Liability Fresh Evidence on Appeal

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kieran Corrigan & Co Ltd

Claimant/appellant

Bashir Timol

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Liability, With Quantum Phase Completed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a director is personally liable for breach of confidence when approving marketing of a structure developed using confidential information
  2. 2 Whether strict liability applies to directors for misuse of confidential information by others
  3. 3 Whether fresh evidence warrants a retrial on director's liability

Ratio Decidendi

A director is not personally liable for breach of confidence unless he uses the confidential information himself; mere approval of acts by others, without use or knowledge, does not suffice. The appeal failed as the judge found Mr. Timol did not use the information when approving the structure. Fresh evidence did not warrant a retrial as it would not have changed the outcome.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No retrial ordered
  • Mr. Timol not liable for breach of confidence