Arthur J Gallagher Services (UK) Ltd And Ors v Alexandre Skriptchenko And Ors [2016] EWHC 603 (QB) (11 February 2016)

Arthur J Gallagher Services (UK) Ltd And Ors v Alexandre Skriptchenko And Ors [2016] EWHC 603 (QB) (11 February 2016)

The court was satisfied, on the evidence and admissions, that the claimants had a strong case that the defendants had taken and misused confidential information. Damages would be inadequate, and the balance of convenience favoured granting interim relief. The least risk of injustice was achieved by ordering delivery up, imaging, search, and destruction of confidential information on the defendants' devices, with safeguards to protect the defendants' own confidential information.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 603 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Arthur J Gallagher Services (UK) Ltd and Ors; Defendant: Alexandre Skriptchenko and Ors; Defendant: Mark Addis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Interim Application in Civil Proceedings / Interlocutory (application for Interim Mandatory Injunction)
Outcome
Interim mandatory injunction granted
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Mandatory Orders, Breach of Confidence, Misuse of Confidential Information, Forensic Inspection, Electronic Evidence
Civil Procedure Employment Law Confidential Information Interim Injunctions Mandatory Orders Breach of Confidence Misuse of Confidential Information Forensic Inspection +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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arthur J Gallagher Services (UK) Ltd and Ors

Claimant

Alexandre Skriptchenko and Ors

Defendant

Mark Addis

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Application in Civil Proceedings / Interlocutory (application for Interim Mandatory Injunction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant a mandatory interim injunction for delivery up, imaging, search, and destruction of confidential information on defendants' electronic devices
  2. 2 Whether damages are an adequate remedy for misuse of confidential information
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours granting the interim relief sought

Ratio Decidendi

The court was satisfied, on the evidence and admissions, that the claimants had a strong case that the defendants had taken and misused confidential information. Damages would be inadequate, and the balance of convenience favoured granting interim relief. The least risk of injustice was achieved by ordering delivery up, imaging, search, and destruction of confidential information on the defendants' devices, with safeguards to protect the defendants' own confidential information.

Court Disposition

Interim mandatory injunction granted

Orders

  • Defendants to deliver up electronic devices to an external expert appointed by them for imaging and search.
  • Expert to search devices using agreed search terms for claimants' confidential information.