Hattons of London Ltd v The Knightsbridge Collection Limited & Ors

Hattons of London Ltd v The Knightsbridge Collection Limited & Ors

The court found that there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the alleged misuse of confidential information and that damages would not be an adequate remedy. The balance of convenience favoured granting an interim injunction to prevent further harm to the Claimant, including prohibitions on use of confidential information, preservation and delivery up of documents, and limited springboard relief. The requirement for Affidavit evidence was proportionate and necessary to enable the Claimant to plead its case. However, the court declined to grant an imaging order at this stage as it was not just or proportionate, particularly given the intrusive nature of such orders and the...

Parties
Claimant: Hattons of London Ltd; First Defendant: The Knightsbridge Collection Limited; Second Defendant: Andrew Pickerill; Third Defendant: Alexander Jeffery; Fourth Defendant: Daniel Farmer; Fifth Defendant: Mohammed Kashif Aziz; Sixth Defendant: William Shore; Seventh Defendant: Nick Harvey; Eighth Defendant: Benjamin Bradshaw
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial / Interim Application for Injunction
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Breach of Confidence, Inducement of Breach, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Interim Injunctions, Springboard Relief, Imaging Orders
Commercial Law Employment Law Breach of Contract Breach of Confidence Inducement of Breach Unlawful Means Conspiracy Interim Injunctions Springboard Relief +1 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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hattons of London Ltd

Claimant

The Knightsbridge Collection Limited

First Defendant

Andrew Pickerill

Second Defendant

Alexander Jeffery

Third Defendant

Daniel Farmer

Fourth Defendant

Mohammed Kashif Aziz

Fifth Defendant

William Shore

Sixth Defendant

Nick Harvey

Seventh Defendant

Benjamin Bradshaw

Eighth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial / Interim Application for Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim prohibitory and mandatory injunction should be granted against the Defendants for alleged breach of contract, inducement of breach, unlawful means conspiracy, and breach of confidentiality
  2. 2 Whether the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction
  3. 3 Whether an order for service of Affidavit evidence should be made

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the alleged misuse of confidential information and that damages would not be an adequate remedy. The balance of convenience favoured granting an interim injunction to prevent further harm to the Claimant, including prohibitions on use of confidential information, preservation and delivery up of documents, and limited springboard relief. The requirement for Affidavit evidence was proportionate and necessary to enable the Claimant to plead its case. However, the court declined to grant an imaging order at this stage as it was not just or proportionate, particularly given the intrusive nature of such orders and the...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Interim injunction granted prohibiting use of confidential information and requiring preservation, delivery up, deletion and destruction of such information
  • Order for service of Affidavit evidence by Defendants