Linklaters LLP & Anor v Mellish

Linklaters LLP & Anor v Mellish

The court found that the claimants were likely to establish at trial that the information was confidential, acquired in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, and that there was a real risk of misuse by the defendant. There was no sufficient public interest or freedom of expression justification to override the duty of confidence. The rights of third parties and the sensitive nature of the information further supported the grant of an interim injunction.

Parties
Claimant: Linklaters LLP; Claimant: Linklaters Business Services; Defendant: Frank Mellish
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / Ex Parte Pre Action Application for Interim Non Disclosure Order
Outcome
Interim injunction granted
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Interim Injunctions, Employment Contracts, Freedom of Expression, Jurisdiction and Service, Human Rights Act Article 10, Public Interest Defence
Employment Law Contract Law Confidentiality Law Breach of Confidence Interim Injunctions Employment Contracts Freedom of Expression Jurisdiction and Service +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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linklaters LLP

Claimant

Linklaters Business Services

Claimant

Frank Mellish

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / Ex Parte Pre Action Application for Interim Non Disclosure Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should be restrained by interim injunction from disclosing confidential information obtained during employment
  2. 2 Whether the information at issue is confidential and subject to an enforceable duty of confidence
  3. 3 Whether any public interest or freedom of expression defence overrides the duty of confidence

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimants were likely to establish at trial that the information was confidential, acquired in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, and that there was a real risk of misuse by the defendant. There was no sufficient public interest or freedom of expression justification to override the duty of confidence. The rights of third parties and the sensitive nature of the information further supported the grant of an interim injunction.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted

Orders

  • Defendant restrained from disclosing eleven specified categories of confidential information until the return date.
  • Defendant required to disclose the identity of any journalists, media organisations, agents, or third parties to whom he has disclosed any of the information with a view to publication.