Bartholomew Hawkins Asset Management Ltd v Bartholomew Hawkins Ltd

Bartholomew Hawkins Asset Management Ltd v Bartholomew Hawkins Ltd

The claimant demonstrated a serious triable issue that the defendant breached the BPA by refusing access to client data, which is an asset under the agreement. Damages would not be adequate due to difficulty in quantification and risk of customer flight. The balance of convenience favours granting the injunction, as the claimant is unable to service clients without access. GDPR concerns do not override the claimant's legitimate interest in accessing data to perform client contracts.

Parties
Claimant: Bartholomew Hawkins Asset Management Limited; Defendant: Bartholomew Hawkins Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Dispute / Interim Injunction Application
Outcome
interim injunction granted
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Business Asset Transfer, Breach of Contract, Client Data Access, GDPR Compliance
Commercial Law Contract Law Data Protection Interim Injunctions Business Asset Transfer Breach of Contract Client Data Access 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bartholomew Hawkins Asset Management Limited

Claimant

Bartholomew Hawkins Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Dispute / Interim Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached the Business Purchase Agreement by restricting access to client data
  2. 2 Whether the IO platform and client data constitute assets under the BPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's request for access is reasonable under the BPA

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant demonstrated a serious triable issue that the defendant breached the BPA by refusing access to client data, which is an asset under the agreement. Damages would not be adequate due to difficulty in quantification and risk of customer flight. The balance of convenience favours granting the injunction, as the claimant is unable to service clients without access. GDPR concerns do not override the claimant's legitimate interest in accessing data to perform client contracts.

Court Disposition

interim injunction granted

Orders

  • Defendant to restore claimant's access to IO platform by 10.00am on 10 June 2020
  • Defendant not to restrict claimant's access to IO platform until further order or agreement