Wild Brain Family International Ltd v Robson & Anor

Wild Brain Family International Ltd v Robson & Anor

The injunction, including the delivery up and evidence preservation orders, was justified on the merits as there was sufficient evidence of a real risk of document destruction. The Claimant did not breach its fair presentation obligation. The court has jurisdiction and discretion to regulate inspection of documents delivered up, and a modified inspection regime is appropriate to protect confidential and privileged material while allowing the Claimant to pursue its case.

Parties
Claimant: Wild Brain Family International Limited; First Defendant: John Robson; Second Defendant: Alfred Chubb
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil (injunction/interim Applications) / Ruling on Discharge and Inspection Applications Following Interim Injunction
Outcome
Discharge application dismissed; Inspection application allowed with modifications
Legal Topics
Search Orders, Injunctions, Employee Competition, Confidentiality, Interim Relief
Civil Procedure Employment Law Confidential Information Search Orders Injunctions Employee Competition Confidentiality Interim Relief

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wild Brain Family International Limited

Claimant

John Robson

First Defendant

Alfred Chubb

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (injunction/interim Applications) / Ruling on Discharge and Inspection Applications Following Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim injunction (including delivery up and evidence preservation orders) should be discharged for lack of merits, improper without notice application, or breach of fair presentation obligation
  2. 2 Whether and how the court should regulate inspection of documents delivered up by the Defendants, including those containing confidential or privileged material

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction, including the delivery up and evidence preservation orders, was justified on the merits as there was sufficient evidence of a real risk of document destruction. The Claimant did not breach its fair presentation obligation. The court has jurisdiction and discretion to regulate inspection of documents delivered up, and a modified inspection regime is appropriate to protect confidential and privileged material while allowing the Claimant to pursue its case.

Court Disposition

Discharge application dismissed; Inspection application allowed with modifications

Orders

  • The Defendants' application to discharge the injunction is dismissed.
  • The Claimant's application for an inspection regime is allowed, subject to modifications specified in the judgment.