Corbiere Ltd v Ke Xu [2018] EWHC 112 (Ch) (26 January 2018)

Corbiere Ltd v Ke Xu [2018] EWHC 112 (Ch) (26 January 2018)

The Claimants have a strong prima facie case of misappropriation of confidential information by Mr Xu, and disclosure is necessary to protect their rights and enable recovery. The balance of interests justifies a passport restraint order limited until compliance with the disclosure order, but not until after trial. The Article 6 right is not automatically engaged by the making of a passport order; its scope requires further argument.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 112 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Corbiere Limited; Claimant: Trenchant Limited; Claimant: Trenchant Employee Services Limited; Defendant: Ke Xu; Intervener: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application (disclosure and Passport Applications)
Outcome
Disclosure order granted; passport restraint order granted until compliance with disclosure order; broader passport restraint until after trial refused; Article 6 declaration not made.
Legal Topics
Disclosure Orders, Confidential Information, Passport Restraint, Article 6 ECHR, Deportation, Enforcement of Civil Orders
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Human Rights Immigration Disclosure Orders Confidential Information Passport Restraint Article 6 ECHR +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 8 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Corbiere Limited

Claimant

Trenchant Limited

Claimant

Trenchant Employee Services Limited

Claimant

Ke Xu

Defendant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application (disclosure and Passport Applications)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Xu should be ordered to disclose the location and recipients of confidential information misappropriated from the Claimants
  2. 2 Whether Mr Xu should be restrained from leaving the jurisdiction and surrender his passport until compliance with disclosure order
  3. 3 Whether the Claimants' Article 6 rights are engaged and interfered with by deportation action

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimants have a strong prima facie case of misappropriation of confidential information by Mr Xu, and disclosure is necessary to protect their rights and enable recovery. The balance of interests justifies a passport restraint order limited until compliance with the disclosure order, but not until after trial. The Article 6 right is not automatically engaged by the making of a passport order; its scope requires further argument.

Court Disposition

Disclosure order granted; passport restraint order granted until compliance with disclosure order; broader passport restraint until after trial refused; Article 6 declaration not made.

Orders

  • Mr Xu to disclose the location of confidential information, its recipients, and fate as sought in amended Application Notice.
  • Mr Xu restrained from leaving jurisdiction and to surrender passport until compliance with disclosure order.