Actial Farmaceutica LDA v De Simone [2015] EWCA Civ 1032 (06 August 2015)

Actial Farmaceutica LDA v De Simone [2015] EWCA Civ 1032 (06 August 2015)

The Court of Appeal held that the deputy judge correctly applied the legal principles for granting a mandatory interim injunction, properly evaluated the risk of injustice, and found no breach of undertakings or misleading of the court by Actial. The substituted service order was justified by exceptional circumstances, including the risk of the order being rendered ineffective by delay. The appeals against both the May and June orders were dismissed.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 1032
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Actial Farmaceutica LDA; Defendant/appellant: Prof Claudio De Simone
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals Against Interim Mandatory Injunction and Substituted Service Order
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Mandatory Orders, Service of Process, Trade Secrets, Breach of Undertakings, Jurisdiction, Committal Applications
Commercial Law Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions Mandatory Orders Service of Process Trade Secrets Breach of Undertakings +2 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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Actial Farmaceutica LDA

Claimant/respondent

Prof Claudio De Simone

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals Against Interim Mandatory Injunction and Substituted Service Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim mandatory injunction (May order) was properly granted
  2. 2 Whether the substituted service order (June order) was properly granted under CPR 6.15(2)
  3. 3 Whether Actial breached undertakings or misled the court

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the deputy judge correctly applied the legal principles for granting a mandatory interim injunction, properly evaluated the risk of injustice, and found no breach of undertakings or misleading of the court by Actial. The substituted service order was justified by exceptional circumstances, including the risk of the order being rendered ineffective by delay. The appeals against both the May and June orders were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal against the May order (mandatory injunction) is dismissed.
  • The appeal against the June order (substituted service) is dismissed.