Corbiere Ltd v Ke Xu

Corbiere Ltd v Ke Xu

The court found a strong prima facie case that Mr Xu misappropriated confidential information and that disclosure is necessary to protect the claimants' rights. The risk of harm to the claimants if Mr Xu is allowed to leave the jurisdiction is real and substantial. The court has jurisdiction and discretion to order both disclosure and passport restraint, and such orders are justified and proportionate in the circumstances. The broader passport restraint until after trial is refused as unnecessary at this stage. The making of the passport order does not, by itself, necessarily engage Article 6 rights as contended by the claimants.

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 declarations not made as sought.
Legal Topics
Disclosure Orders, Passport Restraint Orders, Article 6 ECHR, Enforcement of Judgments, Jurisdictional Restraint
Civil Procedure Confidential Information Human Rights Disclosure Orders Passport Restraint Orders Article 6 ECHR Enforcement of Judgments Jurisdictional Restraint

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 9 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 the court should order disclosure by the defendant of the location and dissemination of confidential information
  2. 2 Whether the court should restrain the defendant from leaving the jurisdiction and require surrender of his passport
  3. 3 Whether such orders engage the claimants' rights under Article 6 ECHR and whether deportation would interfere with those rights

Ratio Decidendi

The court found a strong prima facie case that Mr Xu misappropriated confidential information and that disclosure is necessary to protect the claimants' rights. The risk of harm to the claimants if Mr Xu is allowed to leave the jurisdiction is real and substantial. The court has jurisdiction and discretion to order both disclosure and passport restraint, and such orders are justified and proportionate in the circumstances. The broader passport restraint until after trial is refused as unnecessary at this stage. The making of the passport order does not, by itself, necessarily engage Article 6 rights as contended by the claimants.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Mr Xu to disclose the location and dissemination of confidential information as sought in the amended Application Notice.
  • Mr Xu restrained from leaving the jurisdiction and to surrender his passport until he complies with the disclosure order.