Phaestos Ltd & Anor v Ho & Ors [2012] EWHC 662 (TCC) (22 March 2012)

Phaestos Ltd & Anor v Ho & Ors [2012] EWHC 662 (TCC) (22 March 2012)

The court held that the Merts surveillance claims, having been settled in prior proceedings against EA personally, cannot be re-litigated against the Claimants as joint tortfeasors where the settlement was not shown to represent the full measure of loss or to release the Claimants. The remaining surveillance allegations were not sufficiently pleaded to support a cause of action or to justify an inference of wrongdoing by the Claimants. Accordingly, the relevant parts of the counterclaim were struck out or summary judgment granted.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 662 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Phaestos Limited; Claimant: Mindimaxnox LLP; Claimant: IKOS CIF Limited; Defendant: Peter Ho; Defendant: Tobin Maxwell Gover
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out, Summary Judgment, Security for Costs)
Outcome
Counterclaim (surveillance-related) struck out in part; summary judgment granted in part for Claimants; declaration that Defendants have no legal or beneficial interest in Claimant organisations or IKOS Group companies; security for costs application addressed separately.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Joint Tortfeasor Liability, Harassment, Breach of Confidence, Misuse of Private Information, Data Protection Act 1998, Article 8 ECHR, Summary Judgment, Striking Out, Security for Costs
Civil Procedure Tort Data Protection Human Rights Abuse of Process Joint Tortfeasor Liability Harassment Breach of Confidence +6 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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phaestos Limited

Claimant

Mindimaxnox LLP

Claimant

IKOS CIF Limited

Claimant

Peter Ho

Defendant

Tobin Maxwell Gover

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out, Summary Judgment, Security for Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the surveillance-related counterclaims should be struck out as an abuse of process or for disclosing no reasonable grounds
  2. 2 Whether settlement of prior proceedings precludes further claims against the Claimants as joint tortfeasors
  3. 3 Whether the pleaded facts support a cause of action for harassment, breach of confidence, misuse of private information, or breach of statutory duty

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Merts surveillance claims, having been settled in prior proceedings against EA personally, cannot be re-litigated against the Claimants as joint tortfeasors where the settlement was not shown to represent the full measure of loss or to release the Claimants. The remaining surveillance allegations were not sufficiently pleaded to support a cause of action or to justify an inference of wrongdoing by the Claimants. Accordingly, the relevant parts of the counterclaim were struck out or summary judgment granted.

Court Disposition

Counterclaim (surveillance-related) struck out in part; summary judgment granted in part for Claimants; declaration that Defendants have no legal or beneficial interest in Claimant organisations or IKOS Group companies; security for costs application addressed separately.

Orders

  • Relevant parts of the Defendants' counterclaim relating to surveillance struck out
  • Summary judgment for Claimants on the 12% equity/profit share claims