Kea Investments Ltd v Watson [2023] EWHC 1768 (Ch) (13 June 2023)

Kea Investments Ltd v Watson [2023] EWHC 1768 (Ch) (13 June 2023)

Given the defendant's evasion and the likelihood that service via Mr Crighton's email and WhatsApp reached him, alternative service is valid. Confidentiality orders are justified and proportionate to protect sensitive commercial information from misuse and harassment, pending the trial. Directions for the hearing and evidence timetable are appropriate. Fladgate is properly joined for the purpose of protecting its confidential information.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1768 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: KEA Investments Limited; Defendant: Eric John Watson; Intervening Party: Fladgate LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Business List (ch D) / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Service, Confidentiality, and Directions Prior to Final Determination of Equitable Compensation
Outcome
Applications granted in part.
Legal Topics
Alternative Service of Documents, Confidentiality Orders, Open Justice Principle, Equitable Compensation, Case Management Directions
Civil Procedure Equity Confidentiality Commercial Law Alternative Service of Documents Confidentiality Orders Open Justice Principle Equitable Compensation +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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KEA Investments Limited

Claimant

Eric John Watson

Defendant

Fladgate LLP

Intervening Party

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Business List (ch D) / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Service, Confidentiality, and Directions Prior to Final Determination of Equitable Compensation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether alternative service on the defendant is valid under CPR 6.15 and 6.27
  2. 2 Whether confidentiality orders should be made restricting disclosure of settlement and commercial information
  3. 3 Whether directions for the hearing of the judgment application are appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

Given the defendant's evasion and the likelihood that service via Mr Crighton's email and WhatsApp reached him, alternative service is valid. Confidentiality orders are justified and proportionate to protect sensitive commercial information from misuse and harassment, pending the trial. Directions for the hearing and evidence timetable are appropriate. Fladgate is properly joined for the purpose of protecting its confidential information.

Court Disposition

Applications granted in part.

Orders

  • Alternative service on the defendant via Mr Crighton's email and WhatsApp is valid for past and future documents.
  • Confidentiality orders made restricting disclosure of sensitive information to the defendant only upon undertakings, not to apply to trial at this stage.