Titan Wealth Services Ltd & Anor v Tavistock Investments PLC & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 500 (24 April 2026)

Titan Wealth Services Ltd & Anor v Tavistock Investments PLC & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 500 (24 April 2026)

The pleaded amendment was incoherent, self-contradictory, and insufficiently particularised, failing to identify what confidential information was communicated and misused, and therefore should not have been allowed.

Citation
[2026] EWCA Civ 500
Parties
Claimant: Titan Wealth Services Limited; Appellant/claimant: Titan Asset Management Limited; Respondent/defendant/part 20 Claimant: Tavistock Investments PLC; Respondent/defendant/part 20 Claimant: Tavistock Asset Management Ltd; Defendant: Benjamin Scott Raven; Defendant: Steven Malcolm McGregor; Defendant: Brian Kenneth Raven; Third Party: Titan Wealth Holdings Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal Against Order Allowing Amendment to Defence and Counterclaim
Outcome
Appeal allowed; amendment not permitted.
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Copyright Infringement, Particularisation of Pleadings, Share Purchase Agreement, Outsourced Management Agreement
Commercial Law Intellectual Property Law Contract Law Breach of Confidence Copyright Infringement Particularisation of Pleadings Share Purchase Agreement Outsourced Management Agreement

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Titan Wealth Services Limited

Claimant

Titan Asset Management Limited

Appellant/claimant

Tavistock Investments PLC

Respondent/defendant/part 20 Claimant

Tavistock Asset Management Ltd

Respondent/defendant/part 20 Claimant

Benjamin Scott Raven

Defendant

Steven Malcolm McGregor

Defendant

Brian Kenneth Raven

Defendant

Titan Wealth Holdings Ltd

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal Against Order Allowing Amendment to Defence and Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amendment to plead breach of confidence and copyright infringement should be allowed
  2. 2 Whether the pleading is coherent and sufficiently particularised

Ratio Decidendi

The pleaded amendment was incoherent, self-contradictory, and insufficiently particularised, failing to identify what confidential information was communicated and misused, and therefore should not have been allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; amendment not permitted.

Orders

  • The amendment to plead breach of confidence and copyright infringement is disallowed.
  • Any further application to amend must be made to the Commercial Court.