Phaestos Ltd & Anor v Ho [2012] EWHC 2756 (QB) (16 October 2012)

Phaestos Ltd & Anor v Ho [2012] EWHC 2756 (QB) (16 October 2012)

The court held that, at the stage of proceedings reached, the claimants had not established sufficient grounds to justify the intrusive relief of an independent search and inspection of the defendants' computers beyond what had already been agreed and ordered for preservation and delivery up. The pleaded causes of action did not allege misuse of confidential information for competitive purposes, and the evidence did not show a risk of ongoing misuse. The court found that further policing of delivery up and disclosure should await the proper stage in proceedings, and that the relief sought was disproportionate and unnecessary at this time.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 2756
Parties
Claimant: Phaestos Limited; Claimant: Mindimaxnox LLP; Claimant: IKOS CIF Limited; Defendant: Peter Ho; Defendant: Tobin Maxwell 'Sam' Gover
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Interim Application in Civil Proceedings / Application for Interim Relief Prior to Disclosure
Outcome
Application for further inspection/search order refused
Legal Topics
Interim Relief, Preservation and Inspection of Evidence, Disclosure of Electronic Documents, Breach of Confidence, Employment Contract Obligations
Employment Law Confidential Information Civil Procedure Interim Relief Preservation and Inspection of Evidence Disclosure of Electronic Documents Breach of Confidence Employment Contract Obligations

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phaestos Limited

Claimant

Mindimaxnox LLP

Claimant

IKOS CIF Limited

Claimant

Peter Ho

Defendant

Tobin Maxwell 'Sam' Gover

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Application in Civil Proceedings / Application for Interim Relief Prior to Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are entitled to an order for imaging and search of the defendants' computers and electronic devices for confidential information and software belonging to the claimants
  2. 2 Whether such an order is necessary and proportionate given the pleaded causes of action and the stage of proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the claimants have established a sufficient case of misuse or risk of misuse of confidential information to justify the relief sought

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, at the stage of proceedings reached, the claimants had not established sufficient grounds to justify the intrusive relief of an independent search and inspection of the defendants' computers beyond what had already been agreed and ordered for preservation and delivery up. The pleaded causes of action did not allege misuse of confidential information for competitive purposes, and the evidence did not show a risk of ongoing misuse. The court found that further policing of delivery up and disclosure should await the proper stage in proceedings, and that the relief sought was disproportionate and unnecessary at this time.

Court Disposition

Application for further inspection/search order refused

Orders

  • Existing orders for imaging and preservation of computers by independent expert to stand
  • Defendants to comply with undertakings for delivery up and provision of lists and statements verifying compliance