CBS Butler Ltd v Brown & Ors [2013] EWHC 3944 (QB) (16 December 2013)

CBS Butler Ltd v Brown & Ors [2013] EWHC 3944 (QB) (16 December 2013)

The claimant failed to demonstrate substantial reasons to believe the defendants would conceal or destroy documents. Therefore, the intrusive order depriving defendants of the opportunity to consider disclosure themselves was not justified. Disclosure should proceed in the normal way, and should not extend to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3944
Parties
Claimant: CBS Butler Ltd; First Defendant: Joe Brown; Second Defendant: Alastair Millar; Third Defendant: Peopleforce Recruitment Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Interim Application in Civil Proceedings (queen's Bench Division) / Post Injunction, Application for Directions on Electronic Disclosure
Outcome
Claimant's application for intrusive e-disclosure refused; standard disclosure ordered; costs awarded to defendants.
Legal Topics
Search Orders (anton Piller), Electronic Disclosure, Restrictive Covenants, Confidential Information, Costs Assessment
Civil Procedure Employment Law Search Orders (anton Piller) Electronic Disclosure Restrictive Covenants Confidential Information Costs Assessment

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CBS Butler Ltd

Claimant

Joe Brown

First Defendant

Alastair Millar

Second Defendant

Peopleforce Recruitment Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Application in Civil Proceedings (queen's Bench Division) / Post Injunction, Application for Directions on Electronic Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to an order depriving defendants of the opportunity to consider disclosure of electronic documents themselves
  2. 2 Whether disclosure should extend to computers owned by a non-party (Mrs Brown)
  3. 3 Appropriate procedure for electronic disclosure in the context of alleged misuse of confidential information

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to demonstrate substantial reasons to believe the defendants would conceal or destroy documents. Therefore, the intrusive order depriving defendants of the opportunity to consider disclosure themselves was not justified. Disclosure should proceed in the normal way, and should not extend to computers owned by Mrs Brown, a non-party, as they were not in the possession or control of Mr Brown.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application for intrusive e-disclosure refused; standard disclosure ordered; costs awarded to defendants.

Orders

  • Defendants to provide standard disclosure by keyword search on specified images from 1 January 2013, excluding Mrs Brown's computers.
  • Claimant to pay defendants £8,525.88 in costs within 14 days.