Hattons of London Ltd v The Knightsbridge Collection Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 1993 (KB) (31 July 2025)

Hattons of London Ltd v The Knightsbridge Collection Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 1993 (KB) (31 July 2025)

The court granted prohibitory and mandatory injunctions against all defendants to restrain misuse of confidential information and preserve evidence, ordered service of affidavit evidence, and granted springboard relief limited to one month after affidavit service or further order. The court refused the imaging order as disproportionate and not compliant with CPR 25.17 at this stage.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1993 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Hattons of London Ltd; First Defendant: The Knightsbridge Collection Limited; Second Defendant: Andrew Pickerill; Third Defendant: Alexander Jeffery; Fourth Defendant: Daniel Farmer; Fifth Defendant: Mohammed Kashif Aziz; Sixth Defendant: William Shore; Seventh Defendant: Nick Harvey; Eighth Defendant: Benjamin Bradshaw
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / Post Hearing Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Breach of Confidence, Inducement of Breach, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Springboard Relief, Interim Injunction, Imaging Order, Affidavit Evidence
Commercial Law Employment Law Equity Breach of Contract Breach of Confidence Inducement of Breach Unlawful Means Conspiracy Springboard Relief +3 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hattons of London Ltd

Claimant

The Knightsbridge Collection Limited

First Defendant

Andrew Pickerill

Second Defendant

Alexander Jeffery

Third Defendant

Daniel Farmer

Fourth Defendant

Mohammed Kashif Aziz

Fifth Defendant

William Shore

Sixth Defendant

Nick Harvey

Seventh Defendant

Benjamin Bradshaw

Eighth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / Post Hearing Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim prohibitory and mandatory injunction should be granted against defendants for alleged breach of contract, inducement of breach, unlawful means conspiracy, and breach of confidentiality
  2. 2 Whether springboard relief is justified and proportionate
  3. 3 Whether an order for service of affidavit evidence should be made

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted prohibitory and mandatory injunctions against all defendants to restrain misuse of confidential information and preserve evidence, ordered service of affidavit evidence, and granted springboard relief limited to one month after affidavit service or further order. The court refused the imaging order as disproportionate and not compliant with CPR 25.17 at this stage.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Prohibitory and mandatory injunctions granted against all defendants regarding confidential information and preservation of evidence
  • Order for service of affidavit evidence by all defendants