Capita Plc & Anor v Darch & Ors [2017] EWHC 1401 (Ch) (12 June 2017)

Capita Plc & Anor v Darch & Ors [2017] EWHC 1401 (Ch) (12 June 2017)

Permission to appeal was refused because the grounds advanced by Capita lacked validity; the judge's findings on the evidence, legal principles, and exercise of discretion were open to him, and there was no real prospect of success or compelling reason for an appeal. The orders sought were either not justified on the evidence, too wide, or damages were an adequate remedy. The costs orders were a proper exercise of discretion.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1401 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Capita plc; Claimant: Capita Property & Infrastructure Limited; Defendant: Richard Darch; Defendant: Archus Limited; Defendant: David Short; Defendant: Shane Dineen; Defendant: Stuart Randall; Defendant: Christopher Turner; Defendant: Stanley Coats; Defendant: Jessica Randall; Defendant: Vincent Chalmers; Defendant: Chetan Tailor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal (interim Relief and Costs) / Ruling on Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Interim Relief, Mandatory Injunctions, Negative Injunctions, Springboard Injunctions, Costs Orders, Confidential Information, Restrictive Covenants, Appeal Permission
Employment Law Injunctions Confidential Information Restrictive Covenants Interim Relief Mandatory Injunctions Negative Injunctions Springboard Injunctions +2 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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Capita plc

Claimant

Capita Property & Infrastructure Limited

Claimant

Richard Darch

Defendant

Archus Limited

Defendant

David Short

Defendant

Shane Dineen

Defendant

Stuart Randall

Defendant

Christopher Turner

Defendant

Stanley Coats

Defendant

Jessica Randall

Defendant

Vincent Chalmers

Defendant

Chetan Tailor

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal (interim Relief and Costs) / Ruling on Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted against refusal of interim relief (injunctions, delivery up of documents/emails, springboard injunctions) and costs orders in an employment/confidential information dispute.

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal was refused because the grounds advanced by Capita lacked validity; the judge's findings on the evidence, legal principles, and exercise of discretion were open to him, and there was no real prospect of success or compelling reason for an appeal. The orders sought were either not justified on the evidence, too wide, or damages were an adequate remedy. The costs orders were a proper exercise of discretion.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal dismissed.
  • No permission to appeal on any ground.