TBD (Owen Holland) Ltd v Simons & ors

TBD (Owen Holland) Ltd v Simons & ors

The claimant breached the search order by unilaterally searching and using imaged documents without agreement or court approval, including privileged and irrelevant material. The search order did not permit such conduct. Relief was granted requiring independent review of the searched documents at claimant's expense, and security for costs was ordered. Applications for committal proceedings were premature and not in the public interest; litigation privilege was not established by Mr O’Boyle in respect of the disputed communications.

Parties
Claimant: TBD (Owen Holland) Limited; First Defendant: Andrew Simons; Second Defendant: G2A Limited; Third Defendant: Obcon Solutions Limited; Fourth Defendant: OSL Rail Limited; Fifth Defendant: John O’Boyle; Sixth Defendant: Kelf Engineering SASA; Seventh Defendant: Mathieu Pommellet
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal by Mr O’Boyle against adjournment of committal application allowed; appeal by TBD against order for independent review and security for costs dismissed, save for substitution of Simon Burn for independent solicitors.
Legal Topics
Search Orders, Imaging Orders, Litigation Privilege, Committal Proceedings, Security for Costs
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Evidence Search Orders Imaging Orders Litigation Privilege Committal Proceedings Security for Costs

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TBD (Owen Holland) Limited

Claimant

Andrew Simons

First Defendant

G2A Limited

Second Defendant

Obcon Solutions Limited

Third Defendant

OSL Rail Limited

Fourth Defendant

John O’Boyle

Fifth Defendant

Kelf Engineering SASA

Sixth Defendant

Mathieu Pommellet

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Interpretation and scope of search orders and imaging orders
  2. 2 Breach of search order by claimant
  3. 3 Use of evidence obtained in breach of court order

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant breached the search order by unilaterally searching and using imaged documents without agreement or court approval, including privileged and irrelevant material. The search order did not permit such conduct. Relief was granted requiring independent review of the searched documents at claimant's expense, and security for costs was ordered. Applications for committal proceedings were premature and not in the public interest; litigation privilege was not established by Mr O’Boyle in respect of the disputed communications.

Court Disposition

Appeal by Mr O’Boyle against adjournment of committal application allowed; appeal by TBD against order for independent review and security for costs dismissed, save for substitution of Simon Burn for independent solicitors.

Orders

  • Review of searched documents to be conducted by Simon Burn (not independent solicitors), at claimant's expense.
  • TBD to provide security for costs for O’Boyle Defendants.