Linklaters LLP & Anor v Mellish [2019] EWHC 177 (QB) (05 February 2019)

Linklaters LLP & Anor v Mellish [2019] EWHC 177 (QB) (05 February 2019)

The claimants demonstrated a real risk of disclosure of confidential information by the defendant, who owed express contractual duties of confidence. The information was not in the public domain, was inherently sensitive, and disclosure would infringe third parties' privacy rights. No compelling public interest or defence justified disclosure. The threshold for interim relief was met, and damages would not be an adequate remedy.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 177 (QB)
Parties
Intended Claimant: Linklaters LLP; Intended Claimant: Linklaters Business Services; Intended Defendant: Frank Mellish
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application (pre Action) / Interim Order Granted, Pending Return Date
Outcome
interim injunction granted
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Interim Injunctions, Employment Contracts, Freedom of Expression, Public Interest Defence
Employment Law Confidentiality Privacy Contract Law Breach of Confidence Interim Injunctions Employment Contracts Freedom of Expression +1 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linklaters LLP

Intended Claimant

Linklaters Business Services

Intended Claimant

Frank Mellish

Intended Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application (pre Action) / Interim Order Granted, Pending Return Date

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant threatened or intended to misuse confidential information acquired during employment
  2. 2 Whether the information had the necessary quality of confidence and was imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence
  3. 3 Whether there was a defence or justification for breach of confidence, including public interest or prior disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants demonstrated a real risk of disclosure of confidential information by the defendant, who owed express contractual duties of confidence. The information was not in the public domain, was inherently sensitive, and disclosure would infringe third parties' privacy rights. No compelling public interest or defence justified disclosure. The threshold for interim relief was met, and damages would not be an adequate remedy.

Court Disposition

interim injunction granted

Orders

  • Defendant restrained from disclosing eleven specified categories of confidential information until return date
  • Defendant required to disclose identity of any journalists, press, media organisations, agents, or third parties to whom information was disclosed for publication