Pharmagona Ltd v Taheri & Anor [2020] EWHC 312 (QB) (17 February 2020)

Pharmagona Ltd v Taheri & Anor [2020] EWHC 312 (QB) (17 February 2020)

The court held that the claimant was entitled to an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using or disclosing its confidential information, subject to a proviso permitting disclosure to public authorities investigating the claimant. The claimant did not establish a sufficient risk of disclosure to the world at large to justify a broader injunction, and the public interest defence justified allowing cooperation with authorities. The application for delivery up or destruction of documents was refused due to ongoing investigations and the adequacy of an injunction.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 312
Parties
Claimant: Pharmagona Ltd.; Defendant: Sayed Mostafa Taheri; Defendant: Bahareh Mohammadi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / Hearing and Judgment on Interim Relief
Outcome
Interim injunction granted in part; application for delivery up or destruction refused.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Confidential Information, Public Interest Defence, Employment Dismissal, Whistleblowing, Freedom of Expression, Delivery Up and Destruction of Documents
Employment Law Confidentiality Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions Confidential Information Public Interest Defence Employment Dismissal Whistleblowing +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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pharmagona Ltd.

Claimant

Sayed Mostafa Taheri

Defendant

Bahareh Mohammadi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / Hearing and Judgment on Interim Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using or disclosing the claimant's confidential information
  2. 2 Whether to order delivery up or destruction of confidential material
  3. 3 Whether the public interest defence applies to the defendants' disclosure of information

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the claimant was entitled to an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using or disclosing its confidential information, subject to a proviso permitting disclosure to public authorities investigating the claimant. The claimant did not establish a sufficient risk of disclosure to the world at large to justify a broader injunction, and the public interest defence justified allowing cooperation with authorities. The application for delivery up or destruction of documents was refused due to ongoing investigations and the adequacy of an injunction.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted in part; application for delivery up or destruction refused.

Orders

  • Injunction restraining defendants from using or disclosing claimant's confidential information, with proviso permitting disclosure to public authorities upon request.
  • Refusal of order for delivery up or destruction of confidential material.