Inhealth Pathology Ltd & Ors v Fox & Ors [2023] EWHC 1132 (Ch) (12 May 2023)

Inhealth Pathology Ltd & Ors v Fox & Ors [2023] EWHC 1132 (Ch) (12 May 2023)

The Claimants have a real prospect of establishing that at least some of the information alleged is confidential and that the claim against RHS extends beyond confidential information. The application to strike out or for summary judgment fails except for the plea of confidentiality in paragraph 40 of the APoC, which is struck out as an abuse of process.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1132 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: InHealth Pathology Limited; Claimant: InHealth Limited; Claimant: Prime Endoscopy (Bristol) Limited; Defendant: Dr Stevan Fox; Defendant: Remedy Modular Solutions Limited; Defendant: Remedy Healthcare Solutions Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Strike Out / Summary Judgment Application / Interlocutory (application to Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment)
Outcome
Application dismissed save for striking out the word 'confidential' in paragraph 40 of the APoC.
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Trade Secrets, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Confidential Information, Inducement of Breach of Contract
Commercial Law Intellectual Property Equity Breach of Confidence Trade Secrets Unlawful Means Conspiracy Summary Judgment Strike Out +2 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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

InHealth Pathology Limited

Claimant

InHealth Limited

Claimant

Prime Endoscopy (Bristol) Limited

Claimant

Dr Stevan Fox

Defendant

Remedy Modular Solutions Limited

Defendant

Remedy Healthcare Solutions Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Strike Out / Summary Judgment Application / Interlocutory (application to Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether information alleged by Claimants is confidential
  2. 2 Whether claim against RHS should be struck out or summary judgment granted
  3. 3 Whether the pleaded case extends beyond confidential information

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimants have a real prospect of establishing that at least some of the information alleged is confidential and that the claim against RHS extends beyond confidential information. The application to strike out or for summary judgment fails except for the plea of confidentiality in paragraph 40 of the APoC, which is struck out as an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed save for striking out the word 'confidential' in paragraph 40 of the APoC.

Orders

  • Word 'confidential' struck out from paragraph 40 of the Amended Particulars of Claim.
  • Claim against RHS continues; no summary judgment or strike out granted.