Phaestos Ltd & Anor v Ho & Ors

Phaestos Ltd & Anor v Ho & Ors

The applications to strike out and for summary judgment are dismissed because the court cannot determine at this stage, without full factual investigation, whether the settlement with EA bars the surveillance claims or whether the pleaded facts are incapable of supporting actionable claims. The pleaded facts, taken as true, and the admissions by the Claimants regarding surveillance, require trial. The security for costs application succeeds because there is reason to believe the Claimants would be unable to pay a costs order, and the undertakings offered are inadequate. Security is set at £2.5 million, reflecting a 30% overlap between claim and counterclaim.

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
Claimants’ applications to strike out and for summary judgment dismissed; Defendants’ application for security for costs granted; judgment by agreement for Claimants on equity share counterclaim.
Legal Topics
Striking Out, Summary Judgment, Security for Costs, Harassment, Invasion of Privacy, Breach of Confidence, Data Protection, Joint Tortfeasor Liability, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Tort Law Data Protection Employment Law Striking Out Summary Judgment Security for Costs Harassment +4 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 4 Authorities cited 20 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 counterclaims should be struck out or subject to summary judgment due to prior settlement or abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the settlement with Elena Ambrosiadou (EA) bars further claims against the Claimants as joint tortfeasors
  3. 3 Whether the pleaded facts support actionable claims for harassment, breach of privacy, or data protection violations

Ratio Decidendi

The applications to strike out and for summary judgment are dismissed because the court cannot determine at this stage, without full factual investigation, whether the settlement with EA bars the surveillance claims or whether the pleaded facts are incapable of supporting actionable claims. The pleaded facts, taken as true, and the admissions by the Claimants regarding surveillance, require trial. The security for costs application succeeds because there is reason to believe the Claimants would be unable to pay a costs order, and the undertakings offered are inadequate. Security is set at £2.5 million, reflecting a 30% overlap between claim and counterclaim.

Court Disposition

Claimants’ applications to strike out and for summary judgment dismissed; Defendants’ application for security for costs granted; judgment by agreement for Claimants on equity share counterclaim.

Orders

  • Claimants’ applications to strike out and for summary judgment dismissed
  • Defendants’ application for security for costs granted