Richmond v Selecta Systems Ltd [2018] EWHC 1446 (Ch) (14 June 2018)

Richmond v Selecta Systems Ltd [2018] EWHC 1446 (Ch) (14 June 2018)

No binding severance agreement was reached between the claimant and defendant; negotiations were incomplete and subject to a written agreement which was never executed. Defendant's interference with claimant's online accounts was not actionable as passwords were voluntarily provided. Claimant is not entitled to retain the Mercedes motor car, which remains defendant's property.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1446 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Mark Richmond; Defendant: Selecta Systems Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Employment Contract and Interference With Online Accounts; Counterclaim for Return of Company Car / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim for return of Mercedes allowed
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Termination of Employment, Interference With Property, Employee Benefits, Confidential Information, Summary Dismissal
Employment Law Contract Law Tort Law Formation of Contract Termination of Employment Interference With Property Employee Benefits Confidential Information +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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Richmond

Claimant

Selecta Systems Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Employment Contract and Interference With Online Accounts; Counterclaim for Return of Company Car / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding severance agreement was reached between claimant and defendant
  2. 2 Whether defendant unlawfully interfered with claimant's personal online accounts
  3. 3 Whether claimant is entitled to retain the Mercedes motor car

Ratio Decidendi

No binding severance agreement was reached between the claimant and defendant; negotiations were incomplete and subject to a written agreement which was never executed. Defendant's interference with claimant's online accounts was not actionable as passwords were voluntarily provided. Claimant is not entitled to retain the Mercedes motor car, which remains defendant's property.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim for return of Mercedes allowed

Orders

  • Claimant's claims dismissed
  • Claimant to return Mercedes motor car to defendant