Optosafe Limited & Anor v John Mark Robertson

Optosafe Limited & Anor v John Mark Robertson

The defendant breached the Non-Representation and Non-Disparagement Clauses by publicly representing himself as connected with the claimants and making derogatory statements. His persistent campaign of emails and LinkedIn posts, including threats, insults, and baseless allegations, constituted a course of conduct...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Optosafe Limited; Claimant: Benjamin William Howard; Defendant: John Mark Robertson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 August 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil (breach of Contract and Harassment) / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimants
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Restrictive Covenants, Non Disparagement, Harassment, Civil Restraint Orders, Damages, Injunctions
Contract Law Employment Law Tort Law Civil Procedure Breach of Contract Restrictive Covenants Non Disparagement Harassment +3 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 6 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Optosafe Limited

Claimant

Benjamin William Howard

Claimant

John Mark Robertson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (breach of Contract and Harassment) / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached the Non-Representation and Non-Disparagement Clauses of the Service Agreement and Settlement Deed
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's course of conduct amounted to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is entitled to the statutory defences under s.1(3)(a) and s.1(3)(c) of the 1997 Act

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant breached the Non-Representation and Non-Disparagement Clauses by publicly representing himself as connected with the claimants and making derogatory statements. His persistent campaign of emails and LinkedIn posts, including threats, insults, and baseless allegations, constituted a course of conduct amounting to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The statutory defences of prevention or detection of crime and reasonableness were not made out. The claimants are entitled to a final injunction, damages for harassment, and a general civil restraint order.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimants

Orders

  • Final injunction granted restraining the defendant from breaching the Non-Representation and Non-Disparagement Clauses and from further harassment of the second claimant and those he represents
  • Damages awarded to the second claimant for harassment in the sum of £25,000 (subject to amendment of the claim form; otherwise capped at £10,000)