Darchem Engineering Limited v Andrew Richardson

Darchem Engineering Limited v Andrew Richardson

The court found a high degree of assurance that the claimant would establish misuse of confidential information at trial, that the potential business damage was very serious, that incriminating documents were in the defendant’s possession, and that there was a real risk of destruction. The imaging order was proportionate and justified. The broad disclosure order was refused as disproportionate, but a narrow order limited to specific emails was granted.

Parties
Claimant: Darchem Engineering Limited; Defendant: Andrew Richardson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil (breach of Confidence, Interim Relief) / Interim Application for Imaging and Disclosure Orders
Outcome
Imaging order granted; broad disclosure order refused; narrow disclosure order granted
Legal Topics
Imaging Orders, Disclosure Orders, Breach of Confidence, Trade Secrets, Official Secrets Act, Interim Relief
Employment Law Confidentiality Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Imaging Orders Disclosure Orders Breach of Confidence Trade Secrets +2 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Darchem Engineering Limited

Claimant

Andrew Richardson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (breach of Confidence, Interim Relief) / Interim Application for Imaging and Disclosure Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the evidential threshold for an imaging order is met
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to a disclosure order beyond undertakings and imaging
  3. 3 Whether the defendant misused confidential information and trade secrets

Ratio Decidendi

The court found a high degree of assurance that the claimant would establish misuse of confidential information at trial, that the potential business damage was very serious, that incriminating documents were in the defendant’s possession, and that there was a real risk of destruction. The imaging order was proportionate and justified. The broad disclosure order was refused as disproportionate, but a narrow order limited to specific emails was granted.

Court Disposition

Imaging order granted; broad disclosure order refused; narrow disclosure order granted

Orders

  • Imaging order made over specified devices and accounts to preserve evidence
  • Narrow disclosure order confined to emails of 28th November 2024, 18th September 2024, and a small number of additional emails attaching similar confidential information