Kieran Corrigan & Co Ltd v Bashir Timol

Kieran Corrigan & Co Ltd v Bashir Timol

A director is not personally liable for breach of confidence where he received confidential information but did not use it in approving a structure, unless it is shown he actually used or was on inquiry as to the misuse of that information. The appeal on strict liability fails, but fresh evidence showing possible knowledge or inquiry justifies a retrial.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Kieran Corrigan & Co Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Bashir Timol
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Liability, Application to Admit Fresh Evidence and for Retrial
Outcome
Appeal on Ground 1 dismissed; application to admit fresh evidence and appeal on Ground 3 allowed; retrial ordered on liability as regards Mr. Timol.
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Director Liability, Use of Confidential Information, Admission of Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Retrial Due to Procedural Irregularity
Equity Confidential Information Commercial Law Breach of Confidence Director Liability Use of Confidential Information Admission of Fresh Evidence on Appeal Retrial Due to Procedural Irregularity

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kieran Corrigan & Co Ltd

Claimant/appellant

Bashir Timol

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Liability, Application to Admit Fresh Evidence and for Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a director can be personally liable for breach of confidence if he approves the marketing of a structure developed using confidential information without knowledge of the misuse
  2. 2 Whether liability for breach of confidence is strict once confidential information is received
  3. 3 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal and a retrial ordered due to non-disclosure of relevant documents

Ratio Decidendi

A director is not personally liable for breach of confidence where he received confidential information but did not use it in approving a structure, unless it is shown he actually used or was on inquiry as to the misuse of that information. The appeal on strict liability fails, but fresh evidence showing possible knowledge or inquiry justifies a retrial.

Court Disposition

Appeal on Ground 1 dismissed; application to admit fresh evidence and appeal on Ground 3 allowed; retrial ordered on liability as regards Mr. Timol.

Orders

  • Application to admit new documents on appeal allowed
  • Appeal on strict liability for breach of confidence dismissed