Stroma Building Control Ltd v Barr

Stroma Building Control Ltd v Barr

There is a serious issue to be tried regarding the alleged breaches and misuse of confidential information by the First to Third Defendants. The risk of destruction or concealment of evidence, the willingness of Defendants to give undertakings, and the short duration of the interim orders justify granting interim relief for preservation of evidence and delivery up of hard copy confidential documents. However, injunctive relief to enforce contractual obligations is not justified at this stage as damages would be adequate. Orders for provision of affidavits are justified but limited in scope and duration.

Parties
Claimant: Stroma Building Control Limited; First Defendant: Nigel Barr; Second Defendant: Paul Boyce; Third Defendant: Compliance Building Control Limited; Fourth Defendant: Mark Sheppard; Fifth Defendant: Gordon Lynch; Sixth Defendant: Balraj Sheri
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Interlocutory Application for Interim Relief
Outcome
Interim orders granted in part
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Confidential Information, Preservation of Evidence, Interim Injunctions, Restrictive Covenants
Employment Law Commercial Law Injunctions Breach of Contract Confidential Information Preservation of Evidence Interim Injunctions Restrictive Covenants

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

Parties

Stroma Building Control Limited

Claimant

Nigel Barr

First Defendant

Paul Boyce

Second Defendant

Compliance Building Control Limited

Third Defendant

Mark Sheppard

Fourth Defendant

Gordon Lynch

Fifth Defendant

Balraj Sheri

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Interlocutory Application for Interim Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a serious issue to be tried regarding alleged breaches of contract, inducement of breach, and misuse of confidential information
  2. 2 Whether interim injunctive relief for preservation of evidence and delivery up of confidential information should be granted
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience and adequacy of damages justify interim relief

Ratio Decidendi

There is a serious issue to be tried regarding the alleged breaches and misuse of confidential information by the First to Third Defendants. The risk of destruction or concealment of evidence, the willingness of Defendants to give undertakings, and the short duration of the interim orders justify granting interim relief for preservation of evidence and delivery up of hard copy confidential documents. However, injunctive relief to enforce contractual obligations is not justified at this stage as damages would be adequate. Orders for provision of affidavits are justified but limited in scope and duration.

Court Disposition

Interim orders granted in part

Orders

  • First to Third Defendants to preserve evidence until 9 February 2021 or further order
  • First to Third Defendants to deliver up hard copy confidential documents by 4 February 2021