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 upon request. The claimant did not establish a sufficient risk of disclosure to the world at large to justify a broader injunction, nor did it justify orders for delivery up or destruction. The public interest defence allowed the defendants to cooperate with authorities but not to publish more widely.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 312 (QB)
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 in Civil Proceedings / Hearing of Application for Interim Injunction and Delivery Up
Outcome
Interim injunction granted in part; application for delivery up or destruction refused.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Confidential Information, Public Interest Disclosure, Whistleblowing, Delivery Up, Freedom of Expression, Computer Misuse
Employment Law Confidentiality Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions Confidential Information Public Interest Disclosure Whistleblowing Delivery Up +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 in Civil Proceedings / Hearing of Application for Interim Injunction and Delivery Up

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 information
  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 upon request. The claimant did not establish a sufficient risk of disclosure to the world at large to justify a broader injunction, nor did it justify orders for delivery up or destruction. The public interest defence allowed the defendants to cooperate with authorities but not to publish more widely.

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, except as required by public authorities.
  • Refusal of orders for delivery up or destruction of confidential information.