118 Data Resource Ltd v IDS Data Services Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 3629 (Ch) (05 November 2014)

118 Data Resource Ltd v IDS Data Services Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 3629 (Ch) (05 November 2014)

Clause 4.7 of the Agreement does not confer the broad right of access and inspection claimed by 118; its construction is not sufficiently clear to justify summary judgment or specific performance, and the gaps in the contractual machinery cannot be filled without re-writing the parties' bargain.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 3629 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: 118 Data Resource Limited; First Defendant: IDS Data Services Limited; Second Defendant: Susan Margaret Macfarlane; Third Defendant: Kevin Sharpe
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute (summary Judgment Application) / Application for Summary Judgment for Specific Performance
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Summary Judgment, Interpretation of Contractual Clauses, Confidentiality, Licensing Agreements
Contract Law Commercial Law Specific Performance Summary Judgment Interpretation of Contractual Clauses Confidentiality Licensing Agreements

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

118 Data Resource Limited

Claimant

IDS Data Services Limited

First Defendant

Susan Margaret Macfarlane

Second Defendant

Kevin Sharpe

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute (summary Judgment Application) / Application for Summary Judgment for Specific Performance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Construction of clause 4.7 of the Agreement regarding access rights
  2. 2 Whether the construction is sufficiently clear for summary judgment
  3. 3 Entitlement to specific performance of clause 4.7

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 4.7 of the Agreement does not confer the broad right of access and inspection claimed by 118; its construction is not sufficiently clear to justify summary judgment or specific performance, and the gaps in the contractual machinery cannot be filled without re-writing the parties' bargain.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for summary judgment and specific performance dismissed
  • No order for early disclosure