Sinclair Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Burrell & Anor [2025] EWHC 1602 (KB) (27 June 2025)

Sinclair Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Burrell & Anor [2025] EWHC 1602 (KB) (27 June 2025)

The court held that while there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the defendants' receipt and handling of confidential and privileged information, the context—including the manner of receipt, the ongoing Employment Tribunal proceedings, and the lack of evidence of deliberate wrongdoing or risk of dissipation—did not justify the continuation of the most restrictive interim relief or the extension of secrecy orders. The court found that the claimant's justification for a without notice application was weak, the risk of tipping off a source was overstated, and the principle of open justice weighed against further restrictions. The court declined to continue the lapsed secrecy...

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1602 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Sinclair Pharmaceuticals Limited; First Defendant: Ms Jayne Katherine Burrell; Second Defendant: Mr James Perry
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application (high Court, King's Bench Division) / Post Interim Order, Return Date Hearing and Application to Set Aside Without Notice Injunction
Outcome
Interim relief partially continued; secrecy injunction not extended; no finding of contempt; applications to set aside without notice order and for further delivery up refused.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Legal Professional Privilege, Breach of Confidence, Without Notice Applications, Disclosure Obligations, Employment Tribunal Proceedings
Employment Law Confidentiality Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions Legal Professional Privilege Breach of Confidence Without Notice Applications Disclosure Obligations +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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sinclair Pharmaceuticals Limited

Claimant

Ms Jayne Katherine Burrell

First Defendant

Mr James Perry

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application (high Court, King's Bench Division) / Post Interim Order, Return Date Hearing and Application to Set Aside Without Notice Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants breached duties of confidentiality and contractual obligations to the claimant by receiving, retaining, or disclosing confidential and privileged documents.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was justified in seeking and obtaining a without notice interim injunction against the defendants.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants are entitled to relief from sanctions for late filing of evidence and applications.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the defendants' receipt and handling of confidential and privileged information, the context—including the manner of receipt, the ongoing Employment Tribunal proceedings, and the lack of evidence of deliberate wrongdoing or risk of dissipation—did not justify the continuation of the most restrictive interim relief or the extension of secrecy orders. The court found that the claimant's justification for a without notice application was weak, the risk of tipping off a source was overstated, and the principle of open justice weighed against further restrictions. The court declined to continue the lapsed secrecy...

Court Disposition

Interim relief partially continued; secrecy injunction not extended; no finding of contempt; applications to set aside without notice order and for further delivery up refused.

Orders

  • Continuation of certain interim injunctions against use/disclosure of confidential information and preservation of documents until trial or further order.
  • Refusal to extend secrecy injunction (Injunction 1.2); defendants permitted to discuss proceedings.