Affinity Financial Awareness Ltd & Anor v Ferguson & Ors

Affinity Financial Awareness Ltd & Anor v Ferguson & Ors

The court dismissed the application to join 22 additional defendants due to lack of evidence of breach and no obligation to join all affected parties. The request to exclude certain customers from undertakings was rejected due to insufficient evidence. The claimants are entitled to interim relief preventing disclosure and requiring delivery up of confidential customer lists, as there is a serious question to be tried regarding their status as trade secrets. The request for witness statements detailing post-termination conduct was denied as unnecessary and disproportionate at this stage. All three issues—enforceability, breach, and adequacy of damages—will be determined at the speedy trial.

Parties
Claimant: Affinity Financial Awareness Limited; Claimant: Affinity Connect Limited; Defendant: Andrew Ferguson; Defendant: Juan Moreno; Defendant: Darran Jackson; Defendant: Adrian Peacock; Defendant: Wayne Duffin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interim Application Ruling
Outcome
Application partially granted and partially dismissed.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Confidential Information, Interim Injunctions, Joinder of Parties, Disclosure Orders
Contract Law Employment Law Restrictive Covenants Confidential Information Interim Injunctions Joinder of Parties Disclosure Orders

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

Affinity Financial Awareness Limited

Claimant

Affinity Connect Limited

Claimant

Andrew Ferguson

Defendant

Juan Moreno

Defendant

Darran Jackson

Defendant

Adrian Peacock

Defendant

Wayne Duffin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interim Application Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should 22 additional defendants be joined?
  2. 2 Should certain customers be excluded from undertakings?
  3. 3 Are claimants entitled to prevent disclosure and require delivery up of customer lists?

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the application to join 22 additional defendants due to lack of evidence of breach and no obligation to join all affected parties. The request to exclude certain customers from undertakings was rejected due to insufficient evidence. The claimants are entitled to interim relief preventing disclosure and requiring delivery up of confidential customer lists, as there is a serious question to be tried regarding their status as trade secrets. The request for witness statements detailing post-termination conduct was denied as unnecessary and disproportionate at this stage. All three issues—enforceability, breach, and adequacy of damages—will be determined at the speedy trial.

Court Disposition

Application partially granted and partially dismissed.

Orders

  • Application to join 22 additional defendants dismissed.
  • Excluded customers not removed from undertakings.