Sectrack NV v Satamatics Ltd & Anor

Sectrack NV v Satamatics Ltd & Anor

The claimant demonstrated serious issues to be tried regarding breach of contract and misuse of confidential information, damages would not be an adequate remedy for the claimant, and the balance of convenience favours continuation of the injunction. Material non-disclosure regarding the financial standing of the parent company was found but did not warrant discharge of the injunction. Fortification of the cross-undertaking in damages is ordered in the sum of Can $100,000, with no further fortification required.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: SecTrack NV; First Defendant/respondent: Satamatics Limited; Second Defendant/respondent: Jan Leemans
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Injunction Application / Interlocutory Hearing on Continuation of Injunction and Related Applications
Outcome
Injunction continued until trial or further order; expedited trial ordered; applications to discharge injunction dismissed; fortification of cross-undertaking in damages ordered.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Breach of Contract, Breach of Confidence, Springboard Relief, Disclosure Obligations, Cross Undertaking in Damages, Material Non Disclosure
Contract Law Confidential Information Employment Law Equity Interim Injunctions Breach of Contract Breach of Confidence Springboard Relief +3 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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SecTrack NV

Claimant/applicant

Satamatics Limited

First Defendant/respondent

Jan Leemans

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Injunction Application / Interlocutory Hearing on Continuation of Injunction and Related Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injunction granted ex parte should be continued until trial or further order
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has shown serious issues to be tried regarding breach of contract and breach of confidence
  3. 3 Adequacy of damages as a remedy for both parties

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant demonstrated serious issues to be tried regarding breach of contract and misuse of confidential information, damages would not be an adequate remedy for the claimant, and the balance of convenience favours continuation of the injunction. Material non-disclosure regarding the financial standing of the parent company was found but did not warrant discharge of the injunction. Fortification of the cross-undertaking in damages is ordered in the sum of Can $100,000, with no further fortification required.

Court Disposition

Injunction continued until trial or further order; expedited trial ordered; applications to discharge injunction dismissed; fortification of cross-undertaking in damages ordered.

Orders

  • Continuation of injunction in terms of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the draft order until trial or further order
  • Expedited trial to be heard not before 1 April 2008