Dadourian Group International Inc & Ors v Simms & Ors [2007] EWHC 2634 (Ch) (14 November 2007)

Dadourian Group International Inc & Ors v Simms & Ors [2007] EWHC 2634 (Ch) (14 November 2007)

The consent order made against Ms Eagle does not directly bind third parties who received documents before knowledge of the order, and does not require them to deliver up such documents. However, deployment or use of the material by third parties after learning of the order may amount to contempt of court if it would have a significant and adverse effect on the purpose of the order, namely the preservation of confidentiality and the rights in the Queen's Bench action. Unless and until the court is satisfied that such deployment would not be contempt, the material cannot be relied upon in these proceedings.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 2634 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Dadourian Group International Inc.; Claimant/respondent: Alex Dadourian; Claimant/respondent: Haig Dadourian; Defendant/applicant: Paul Simms; Defendant/applicant: Selim Rahman; Defendant/applicant: Jack Dadourian; Defendant/applicant: Helga Dadourian; Defendant/applicant: Michael A Conlon; Defendant/applicant: Paul S Shaerf; Defendant/applicant: G Andrew Couch; Defendant/applicant: Michael A Parker; Defendant/applicant: Guy W Vincent; Defendant/applicant: Robert A Perrin; Defendant/applicant: Andrew M Smith; Defendant/applicant: Azuri Limited; Defendant/applicant: Brinton Establishment (formerly known as Wildhorse Establishment); Defendant/applicant: Libourne Investments Limited; Defendant/applicant: Ardals Investment Limited; Defendant/applicant: Republic Investment Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Litigation / Interlocutory Application for Injunctive Relief Regarding Use of Documents
Outcome
Interim injunction granted; Claimants (DGI) not permitted to deploy the disputed material pending further hearing or application to vary the order.
Legal Topics
Third Party Effects of Injunctions, Contempt of Court, Confidential and Privileged Documents, Deployment of Improperly Obtained Evidence, Variation of Court Orders
Civil Procedure Equity Confidentiality Injunctions Third Party Effects of Injunctions Contempt of Court Confidential and Privileged Documents Deployment of Improperly Obtained Evidence +1 more

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dadourian Group International Inc.

Claimant/respondent

Alex Dadourian

Claimant/respondent

Haig Dadourian

Claimant/respondent

Paul Simms

Defendant/applicant

Selim Rahman

Defendant/applicant

Jack Dadourian

Defendant/applicant

Helga Dadourian

Defendant/applicant

Michael A Conlon

Defendant/applicant

Paul S Shaerf

Defendant/applicant

G Andrew Couch

Defendant/applicant

Michael A Parker

Defendant/applicant

Guy W Vincent

Defendant/applicant

Robert A Perrin

Defendant/applicant

Andrew M Smith

Defendant/applicant

Azuri Limited

Defendant/applicant

Brinton Establishment (formerly known as Wildhorse Establishment)

Defendant/applicant

Libourne Investments Limited

Defendant/applicant

Ardals Investment Limited

Defendant/applicant

Republic Investment Company Limited

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Litigation / Interlocutory Application for Injunctive Relief Regarding Use of Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does a consent order for delivery up and non-use of documents bind third parties who received documents before knowledge of the order?
  2. 2 Would deployment of such documents by third parties amount to contempt of court?
  3. 3 Is the use of confidential or privileged material obtained in breach of duty admissible in litigation?

Ratio Decidendi

The consent order made against Ms Eagle does not directly bind third parties who received documents before knowledge of the order, and does not require them to deliver up such documents. However, deployment or use of the material by third parties after learning of the order may amount to contempt of court if it would have a significant and adverse effect on the purpose of the order, namely the preservation of confidentiality and the rights in the Queen's Bench action. Unless and until the court is satisfied that such deployment would not be contempt, the material cannot be relied upon in these proceedings.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted; Claimants (DGI) not permitted to deploy the disputed material pending further hearing or application to vary the order.

Orders

  • Claimants and their agents are restrained from deploying or relying on the disputed documents and data pending further order.
  • Directions to be given for further submissions or applications, including possible application to vary the order.