Capita Plc & Anor v Darch & Ors [2017] EWHC 1248 (Ch) (26 May 2017)

Capita Plc & Anor v Darch & Ors [2017] EWHC 1248 (Ch) (26 May 2017)

The claimants failed to establish a sufficient evidential basis for the grant of mandatory or prohibitory interim injunctions against the resisting defendants, as there was no real risk of destruction or misuse of property, nor a high degree of assurance that the claimants would succeed at trial. The balance of convenience did not favour the grant of such relief, and damages would be an adequate remedy for any proven loss.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1248 (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
26 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application in Civil Proceedings / Interlocutory (application for Interim Relief)
Outcome
Interim injunctions refused against all defendants who resisted them; limited exceptions for certain undertakings and agreed orders.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Breach of Confidence, Database Rights, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Springboard Injunctions, Employee Duties, Injunctions
Employment Law Equity and Trusts Intellectual Property Commercial Law Restrictive Covenants Breach of Confidence Database Rights Unlawful Means Conspiracy +3 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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

Interim Injunction Application in Civil Proceedings / Interlocutory (application for Interim Relief)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants breached restrictive covenants and duties of confidence owed to the claimants
  2. 2 Whether the defendants misused confidential information and/or infringed database rights
  3. 3 Whether the claimants are entitled to interim injunctive relief, including delivery up and springboard injunctions

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to establish a sufficient evidential basis for the grant of mandatory or prohibitory interim injunctions against the resisting defendants, as there was no real risk of destruction or misuse of property, nor a high degree of assurance that the claimants would succeed at trial. The balance of convenience did not favour the grant of such relief, and damages would be an adequate remedy for any proven loss.

Court Disposition

Interim injunctions refused against all defendants who resisted them; limited exceptions for certain undertakings and agreed orders.

Orders

  • No mandatory or prohibitory interim injunctions granted against resisting defendants.
  • Agreed undertakings and orders incorporated for certain defendants (Chalmers and Tailor).