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, so the intrusive order for disclosure without defendants' intervention was refused. Mrs Brown's computers were not in the possession or control of Mr Brown and thus not subject to disclosure. Costs were awarded to the defendants as the claimant's application failed.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3944 (QB)
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; defendants awarded costs.
Legal Topics
Search Orders (anton Piller), Disclosure of Electronic Documents, Restrictive Covenants, Confidential Information, Costs Assessment
Civil Procedure Employment Law Search Orders (anton Piller) Disclosure of Electronic Documents Restrictive Covenants Confidential Information Costs Assessment

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
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 for electronic disclosure depriving defendants of the opportunity to consider disclosure themselves
  2. 2 Whether documents on computers owned by a non-party (Mrs Brown) are subject to disclosure
  3. 3 Appropriate costs order for the application

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to demonstrate substantial reasons to believe the defendants would conceal or destroy documents, so the intrusive order for disclosure without defendants' intervention was refused. Mrs Brown's computers were not in the possession or control of Mr Brown and thus not subject to disclosure. Costs were awarded to the defendants as the claimant's application failed.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Defendants to provide standard disclosure by keyword search (with specified terms and date limits) on identified images, excluding Mrs Brown's computers.
  • Claimant to pay defendants £8,525.88 in costs within 14 days.