Filmflex Movies Ltd v Piksel Ltd [2014] EWHC 4616 (Ch) (12 December 2014)

Filmflex Movies Ltd v Piksel Ltd [2014] EWHC 4616 (Ch) (12 December 2014)

Interim relief is refused because damages are likely to be an adequate remedy for the claimant, the urgency is not substantiated, and the risk of irremediable harm to the defendant from disclosure to a competitor outweighs the claimant's asserted risks. The balance of convenience does not favour granting the interim order sought.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 4616 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Filmflex Movies Limited; Defendant/respondent: Piksel Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Interim Application for Delivery Up of Source Code Pending Substantive Hearing / Application for Interim Relief
Outcome
Interim relief refused
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Source Code Delivery, Escrow Agreements, Balance of Convenience, Adequacy of Damages
Commercial Law Intellectual Property Contract Law Interim Injunctions Source Code Delivery Escrow Agreements Balance of Convenience Adequacy of Damages

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

Parties

Filmflex Movies Limited

Claimant/applicant

Piksel Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Interim Application for Delivery Up of Source Code Pending Substantive Hearing / Application for Interim Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim relief should be granted for delivery up of combined source code to a third party pending substantive determination of contractual entitlement
  2. 2 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the claimant or defendant
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours granting interim relief

Ratio Decidendi

Interim relief is refused because damages are likely to be an adequate remedy for the claimant, the urgency is not substantiated, and the risk of irremediable harm to the defendant from disclosure to a competitor outweighs the claimant's asserted risks. The balance of convenience does not favour granting the interim order sought.

Court Disposition

Interim relief refused

Orders

  • Application for interim delivery up of combined source code to Aditi dismissed
  • Court willing to hear parties on partial relief for undisputed source code elements