Capita Plc & Anor v Darch & Ors

Capita Plc & Anor v Darch & Ors

Permission to appeal is refused because none of the proposed grounds demonstrate a real prospect of success or a compelling reason for an appeal. The judge's findings on the refusal of injunctions, the adequacy of damages, the scope of confidential information, the refusal of springboard relief, and the costs orders were all within the ambit of reasonable judicial discretion and supported by the evidence and law.

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
Civil (employment/commercial) / Application for Permission to Appeal (post Interlocutory Judgment)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Confidential Information, Springboard Relief, Restrictive Covenants, Costs Orders, Appeal Procedure
Employment Law Commercial Law Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions Confidential Information Springboard Relief Restrictive Covenants Costs Orders +1 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 6 Authorities cited 11 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

Civil (employment/commercial) / Application for Permission to Appeal (post Interlocutory Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted against refusal of interim injunctions and related orders
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in refusing mandatory and prohibitory injunctions regarding confidential information and emails
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in refusing springboard relief

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal is refused because none of the proposed grounds demonstrate a real prospect of success or a compelling reason for an appeal. The judge's findings on the refusal of injunctions, the adequacy of damages, the scope of confidential information, the refusal of springboard relief, and the costs orders were all within the ambit of reasonable judicial discretion and supported by the evidence and law.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused