Wild Brain Family International Ltd v Robson & Anor [2018] EWHC 3163 (Ch) (23 November 2018)

Wild Brain Family International Ltd v Robson & Anor [2018] EWHC 3163 (Ch) (23 November 2018)

There was sufficient evidence at the time of the without notice hearing to infer a real risk of destruction of relevant documents by the defendants, justifying the grant and continuation of the injunction and associated orders. The claimant did not breach its fair presentation obligation in any material respect. The injunction is not discharged on merits, procedural or disclosure grounds.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 3163 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Wild Brain Family International Limited; Defendant: John Robson; Defendant: Alfred Chubb
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application (discharge and Inspection Applications) / Post Injunction, Hearing of Discharge and Inspection Applications
Outcome
Discharge application dismissed; Inspection application granted with regime for redaction and confidentiality club.
Legal Topics
Search Orders, Evidence Preservation, Fair Presentation Obligation, Delivery Up Orders, Confidentiality Clubs, Full and Frank Disclosure
Civil Procedure Employment Law Confidential Information Injunctions Search Orders Evidence Preservation Fair Presentation Obligation Delivery Up Orders +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 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wild Brain Family International Limited

Claimant

John Robson

Defendant

Alfred Chubb

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application (discharge and Inspection Applications) / Post Injunction, Hearing of Discharge and Inspection Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injunction (including delivery up and evidence preservation orders) should be discharged on merits
  2. 2 Whether the injunction was properly granted without notice
  3. 3 Whether the claimant breached its fair presentation obligation

Ratio Decidendi

There was sufficient evidence at the time of the without notice hearing to infer a real risk of destruction of relevant documents by the defendants, justifying the grant and continuation of the injunction and associated orders. The claimant did not breach its fair presentation obligation in any material respect. The injunction is not discharged on merits, procedural or disclosure grounds.

Court Disposition

Discharge application dismissed; Inspection application granted with regime for redaction and confidentiality club.

Orders

  • Defendants permitted to redact documents for privilege/confidence and required to deliver up within 14 days, subject to mechanism for resolving disputes over redactions.
  • Claimant permitted to inspect redacted material via confidentiality club; mechanism for objections and court resolution provided.