Derma Med Ltd & Anor v Ally & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 175 (23 February 2024)

Derma Med Ltd & Anor v Ally & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 175 (23 February 2024)

The Court of Appeal held that the claimants' failures of disclosure were not deliberate and were of limited significance, and that the High Court judge erred in characterising them as serious and culpable. The injunction should not have been discharged, and a fresh injunction was appropriate because there was a strong prima facie case of breach, damages would not be an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience favoured the claimants. The interests of justice required the injunction to be restored and continued, with the definition of confidential information suitably narrowed.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Civ 175
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Derma Med Limited; Appellant/claimant: Peal Athena Limited; Respondent/defendant: Dr Zack Ally; Respondent/defendant: Zackally Limited; Respondent/defendant: Dr Sanah Qasemzahi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Interim Injunction Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Restrictive Covenants, Confidential Information, Full and Frank Disclosure, Remedies for Breach of Contract
Contract Law Employment Law Equity Interim Injunctions Restrictive Covenants Confidential Information Full and Frank Disclosure Remedies for Breach of Contract

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

Parties

Derma Med Limited

Appellant/claimant

Peal Athena Limited

Appellant/claimant

Dr Zack Ally

Respondent/defendant

Zackally Limited

Respondent/defendant

Dr Sanah Qasemzahi

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Interim Injunction Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants failed in their duty of full and frank disclosure on a without notice application for interim injunctions
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was wrong to discharge the injunction and refuse a fresh injunction
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for breach of restrictive covenants and misuse of confidential information

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the claimants' failures of disclosure were not deliberate and were of limited significance, and that the High Court judge erred in characterising them as serious and culpable. The injunction should not have been discharged, and a fresh injunction was appropriate because there was a strong prima facie case of breach, damages would not be an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience favoured the claimants. The interests of justice required the injunction to be restored and continued, with the definition of confidential information suitably narrowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The injunction against competition is restored and continued until 24 March 2024.
  • An interim injunction to protect confidential information is granted on agreed terms.