Bartholomew Hawkins Asset Management Ltd v Bartholomew Hawkins Ltd [2020] EWHC 1816 (QB) (09 June 2020)

Bartholomew Hawkins Asset Management Ltd v Bartholomew Hawkins Ltd [2020] EWHC 1816 (QB) (09 June 2020)

There is a serious issue to be tried as to whether the defendant breached the BPA by refusing access to the IO platform. Damages would not be an adequate remedy for the claimant due to the difficulty in quantifying loss and the defendant's limited resources. The balance of convenience favours granting the injunction, as the claimant is unable to service 842 clients without access, risking loss of goodwill and clients. Granting access does not necessarily breach GDPR, as processing may be lawful under contract necessity or legitimate interests. The injunction is granted to restore access to the IO platform, with an expedited trial directed to resolve outstanding issues.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1816
Parties
Claimant: Bartholomew Hawkins Asset Management Limited; Defendant: Bartholomew Hawkins Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / Interlocutory (interim Relief)
Outcome
Interim injunction granted; claimant's costs in the case.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Business Purchase Agreements, Access to Client Data, Breach of Contract, GDPR Compliance
Contract Law Commercial Law Data Protection Interim Injunctions Business Purchase Agreements Access to Client Data Breach of Contract GDPR Compliance

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bartholomew Hawkins Asset Management Limited

Claimant

Bartholomew Hawkins Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / Interlocutory (interim Relief)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached the Business Purchase Agreement by withdrawing access to client data/software platform
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to interim injunctive relief to restore access to the IO platform
  3. 3 Whether granting access would breach GDPR obligations

Ratio Decidendi

There is a serious issue to be tried as to whether the defendant breached the BPA by refusing access to the IO platform. Damages would not be an adequate remedy for the claimant due to the difficulty in quantifying loss and the defendant's limited resources. The balance of convenience favours granting the injunction, as the claimant is unable to service 842 clients without access, risking loss of goodwill and clients. Granting access does not necessarily breach GDPR, as processing may be lawful under contract necessity or legitimate interests. The injunction is granted to restore access to the IO platform, with an expedited trial directed to resolve outstanding issues.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted; claimant's costs in the case.

Orders

  • Defendant to restore claimant's access to the IO platform by 10:00am on 10 June 2020.
  • Defendant not to restrict claimant's access to the IO platform until further order or agreement.