Aqua Global Solutions Ltd v Fiserv (Europe) Ltd

Aqua Global Solutions Ltd v Fiserv (Europe) Ltd

Where a single document is directly referred to in a statement of case and is directly relevant to the issues in dispute, the applicant is entitled to inspection unless the respondent can demonstrate good grounds for limiting inspection on the basis of confidentiality or irrelevance. In this case, the Defendant failed to justify withholding or redacting the Tesco Licence Agreement, and the balance of interests requires disclosure to the Claimant's legal team and specified individuals, subject to confidentiality undertakings.

Parties
Claimant: Aqua Global Solutions Limited; Defendant: Fiserv (Europe) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Inspection of Document (cpr 31.14/31.15/31.12)
Outcome
Claimant's application for inspection of the unredacted Tesco Licence Agreement granted, subject to confidentiality ring; Defendant's application for wider confidentiality order refused except as to CPR 31.22(2) and CPR 5.4C(2).
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Documents, Confidentiality, Copyright Infringement, Software Licensing
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Intellectual Property Disclosure of Documents Confidentiality Copyright Infringement Software Licensing

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aqua Global Solutions Limited

Claimant

Fiserv (Europe) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Inspection of Document (cpr 31.14/31.15/31.12)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant is entitled to inspection of the unredacted Tesco Licence Agreement under CPR 31.14
  2. 2 Whether confidentiality or irrelevance justifies redaction or withholding of the document
  3. 3 Whether the prior consent order compromised the Claimant's application for inspection

Ratio Decidendi

Where a single document is directly referred to in a statement of case and is directly relevant to the issues in dispute, the applicant is entitled to inspection unless the respondent can demonstrate good grounds for limiting inspection on the basis of confidentiality or irrelevance. In this case, the Defendant failed to justify withholding or redacting the Tesco Licence Agreement, and the balance of interests requires disclosure to the Claimant's legal team and specified individuals, subject to confidentiality undertakings.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application for inspection of the unredacted Tesco Licence Agreement granted, subject to confidentiality ring; Defendant's application for wider confidentiality order refused except as to CPR 31.22(2) and CPR 5.4C(2).

Orders

  • The Defendant shall disclose the entire unredacted Tesco Licence Agreement to the Claimant's legal advisers and specified individuals within a confidentiality ring, subject to undertakings and restrictions on use.
  • Order under CPR 31.22(2) preventing non-party access to the document on the court file without court order.