Global Processing Services (UK) Limited v Vladimir Yanpolsky & Anor.

Global Processing Services (UK) Limited v Vladimir Yanpolsky & Anor.

The Defendants' threatened use of the Disclosed Data to contact individual cardholders was not authorised, was not for the purpose of an appeal, was not in the public interest, and would cause reputational detriment to the Claimant. The data had the necessary quality of confidence and was imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence. There was no realistic prospect of the Defendants successfully defending the claim at trial.

Parties
Claimant: Global Processing Services (UK) Limited; First Defendant: Vladimir Yanpolsky; Second Defendant: Alla Yanpolsky
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment for the Claimant
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Summary Judgment, Implied Undertaking, Use of Disclosed Data, Public Interest Defence
Civil Procedure Confidentiality Law Breach of Confidence Summary Judgment Implied Undertaking Use of Disclosed Data Public Interest Defence

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Global Processing Services (UK) Limited

Claimant

Vladimir Yanpolsky

First Defendant

Alla Yanpolsky

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants' use or threatened use of confidential information constituted a breach of confidence
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants were under an obligation of confidence regarding the disclosed data
  3. 3 Whether any public interest or purpose exception applied to the Defendants' use of the data

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants' threatened use of the Disclosed Data to contact individual cardholders was not authorised, was not for the purpose of an appeal, was not in the public interest, and would cause reputational detriment to the Claimant. The data had the necessary quality of confidence and was imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence. There was no realistic prospect of the Defendants successfully defending the claim at trial.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment for the Claimant

Orders

  • Injunction prohibiting the Defendants from using, preserving, disseminating or disclosing the Disclosed Data
  • Order for delivery up and permanent destruction and/or deletion of any documents containing the Disclosed Data