Optosafe Ltd & Anor v Robertson [2025] EWHC 2733 (KB) (22 October 2025)

Optosafe Ltd & Anor v Robertson [2025] EWHC 2733 (KB) (22 October 2025)

The interim injunction granted in this case is not a 'protective injunction' within the meaning of s.85G Courts Act 2003 and the 2022 Regulations, as it was not made under the statutory provisions listed nor is it a 'common law injunction' for these purposes; therefore, the automatic prohibition on cross-examination...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 2733 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Optosafe Limited; Claimant: Benjamin William Howard; Defendant: John Mark Robertson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Pre Trial Review; Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Applications granted in part and refused in part
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Harassment, Admissibility of Evidence, Civil Restraint Orders, Cross Examination, Hearsay Evidence, Relief From Sanction
Contract Law Tort Law Civil Procedure Breach of Contract Harassment Admissibility of Evidence Civil Restraint Orders Cross Examination +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Optosafe Limited

Claimant

Benjamin William Howard

Claimant

John Mark Robertson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Pre Trial Review; Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is automatically prohibited from cross-examining the second claimant in person under s.85G Courts Act 2003 and related regulations
  2. 2 Whether parts of the defendant's witness statement should be struck out as irrelevant or inadmissible
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's hearsay notice should be struck out in whole or in part

Ratio Decidendi

The interim injunction granted in this case is not a 'protective injunction' within the meaning of s.85G Courts Act 2003 and the 2022 Regulations, as it was not made under the statutory provisions listed nor is it a 'common law injunction' for these purposes; therefore, the automatic prohibition on cross-examination in person does not apply. Parts of the defendant's witness statement and hearsay notice are irrelevant to the pleaded issues and are struck out. Relief from sanction to rely on Ms Pearson's witness statement is refused due to serious unexplained default and lack of central relevance.

Court Disposition

Applications granted in part and refused in part

Orders

  • Application for automatic prohibition on cross-examination in person refused
  • Order striking out specified parts of the defendant's witness statement