Autostore Technology AS v Ocado Group Plc & Ors [2021] EWHC 1614 (Pat) (11 June 2021)

Autostore Technology AS v Ocado Group Plc & Ors [2021] EWHC 1614 (Pat) (11 June 2021)

Ocado failed to demonstrate a high degree of probability that it would succeed at trial in establishing an implied contract prohibiting disclosure of the Document in Issue in US proceedings. The evidence was inconclusive as to the scope of the agreement reached at the London Meetings. Section 12(3) Human Rights Act 1998 was not engaged because the threatened disclosure was not public. The balance of irreparable harm favoured refusal of the injunction, as the ITC judge was better placed to decide admissibility and no procedural injustice would result.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1614 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: AutoStore Technology AS; Defendant/applicant: Ocado Group PLC; Defendant/applicant: Ocado Retail Limited; Defendant/applicant: Ocado Solutions Limited; Defendant/applicant: Ocado Innovation Limited; Defendant/applicant: Ocado Operating Limited; Defendant/applicant: Tharsus Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / Return Date Hearing Following Ex Parte Order
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Without Prejudice Privilege, Breach of Confidence, Anti Suit Injunctions, Patent Litigation, Confidentiality Agreements
Intellectual Property Contract Equity Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions Without Prejudice Privilege Breach of Confidence Anti Suit Injunctions +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 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AutoStore Technology AS

Claimant/respondent

Ocado Group PLC

Defendant/applicant

Ocado Retail Limited

Defendant/applicant

Ocado Solutions Limited

Defendant/applicant

Ocado Innovation Limited

Defendant/applicant

Ocado Operating Limited

Defendant/applicant

Tharsus Group Limited

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / Return Date Hearing Following Ex Parte Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim injunction should restrain disclosure of information in US proceedings
  2. 2 Whether an implied contract governed by English law prohibits disclosure
  3. 3 Whether section 12(3) Human Rights Act 1998 is engaged

Ratio Decidendi

Ocado failed to demonstrate a high degree of probability that it would succeed at trial in establishing an implied contract prohibiting disclosure of the Document in Issue in US proceedings. The evidence was inconclusive as to the scope of the agreement reached at the London Meetings. Section 12(3) Human Rights Act 1998 was not engaged because the threatened disclosure was not public. The balance of irreparable harm favoured refusal of the injunction, as the ITC judge was better placed to decide admissibility and no procedural injustice would result.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No interim injunction granted
  • AutoStore not restrained from disclosing the Document in Issue in US ITC proceedings