MX1 Ltd & Anor v SES S.A [2018] EWHC 717 (Ch) (28 March 2018)

MX1 Ltd & Anor v SES S.A [2018] EWHC 717 (Ch) (28 March 2018)

The applicants failed to establish a strong prima facie case of conspiracy against the defendant, nor did they show that serious damage would be avoided by granting a search order. The risk of destruction or removal of evidence was not shown to be more than merely possible, and the harm to the defendant from a search order would be disproportionate. Therefore, the conditions for granting a search order were not satisfied.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 717 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: MX1 Limited; Claimant/applicant: SES S.A.; Defendant/respondent: Fardad Farahzad
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Search Order Application (without Notice) / Interim Application, Second Hearing
Outcome
Application for search order refused.
Legal Topics
Search Orders, Breach of Confidence, Conspiracy (lawful and Unlawful Means), Preservation of Evidence, Interim Remedies
Civil Procedure Tort Law Search Orders Breach of Confidence Conspiracy (lawful and Unlawful Means) Preservation of Evidence Interim Remedies

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

Parties

MX1 Limited

Claimant/applicant

SES S.A.

Claimant/applicant

Fardad Farahzad

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Search Order Application (without Notice) / Interim Application, Second Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have established the five conditions for the grant of a search order against the defendant, including a strong prima facie case of conspiracy, serious damage to be avoided, possession of incriminating evidence, risk of destruction of evidence, and proportionality.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish a strong prima facie case of conspiracy against the defendant, nor did they show that serious damage would be avoided by granting a search order. The risk of destruction or removal of evidence was not shown to be more than merely possible, and the harm to the defendant from a search order would be disproportionate. Therefore, the conditions for granting a search order were not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Application for search order refused.

Orders

  • No search order granted.
  • Applicants may seek an alternative order requiring the defendant to preserve evidence, to be considered at a further hearing if pursued.