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 the application, the claimants had not established sufficient grounds to justify the intrusive inspection/search order sought in respect of the defendants' computers, except in relation to the claimants' software (such as the Gauss Code), where evidence of copying, retention, and deletion raised legitimate concerns. The court found that the proper policing of delivery up and disclosure obligations should await the appropriate stage in proceedings, and that the relief sought was not justified as a search order or under the CPR for disclosure/inspection at this time. The court emphasised the need for necessity and proportionality, and that the claimants'...

Citation
[2012] EWHC 2756 (QB)
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 Trial
Outcome
Application for full inspection/search order refused except as already provided for by prior orders and undertakings.
Legal Topics
Interim Relief, Preservation and Inspection of Evidence, Disclosure of Electronic Documents, Breach of Confidence, Employment Contract Duties
Employment Law Confidential Information Civil Procedure Interim Relief Preservation and Inspection of Evidence Disclosure of Electronic Documents Breach of Confidence Employment Contract Duties

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 13 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 Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are entitled to an order for imaging and inspection/search of the defendants' computers and electronic devices for confidential information and software belonging to the claimants.
  2. 2 Whether the application is properly characterised as a search order, an order for preservation and inspection of property, or for specific disclosure and inspection under the CPR.
  3. 3 Whether the relief sought is necessary and proportionate given the pleaded causes of action and the stage of proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, at the stage of the application, the claimants had not established sufficient grounds to justify the intrusive inspection/search order sought in respect of the defendants' computers, except in relation to the claimants' software (such as the Gauss Code), where evidence of copying, retention, and deletion raised legitimate concerns. The court found that the proper policing of delivery up and disclosure obligations should await the appropriate stage in proceedings, and that the relief sought was not justified as a search order or under the CPR for disclosure/inspection at this time. The court emphasised the need for necessity and proportionality, and that the claimants'...

Court Disposition

Application for full inspection/search order refused except as already provided for by prior orders and undertakings.

Orders

  • Defendants to comply with undertakings for delivery up and listing of relevant documentation.
  • Imaging of computers by independent expert as previously ordered to be maintained for preservation purposes.