Vertical Aerospace Group Limited v Thandiwe Ngoma

Vertical Aerospace Group Limited v Thandiwe Ngoma

The ex parte imaging order was justified due to the Defendant's unexplained copying, uploading, and printing of confidential documents close to her resignation and imminent employment with a competitor, combined with incomplete disclosure to the Claimant. However, the scope of the order regarding provision of information and affidavit was too broad and imprecise and required variation. There was no material failure of full and frank disclosure by the Claimant except as to the breadth and timescale of the information provisions, which is remedied by narrowing the order. The Claimant's application for direct access to imaged material was refused; standard disclosure by the Defendant's...

Parties
Claimant: Vertical Aerospace Group Limited; Defendant: Thandiwe Ngoma
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Interim Injunction (imaging Order) / Ruling on Return Date After Ex Parte Interim Injunction and Cross Applications to Vary/discharge
Outcome
Order maintained in part, varied in part; Claimant's application for direct access to imaged material refused; directions for disclosure by Defendant's solicitors ordered.
Legal Topics
Imaging Orders, Without Notice Applications, Full and Frank Disclosure, Interim Injunctions, Preservation of Evidence, Employee Duties of Confidence
Civil Procedure Employment Law Confidentiality Imaging Orders Without Notice Applications Full and Frank Disclosure Interim Injunctions Preservation of Evidence +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vertical Aerospace Group Limited

Claimant

Thandiwe Ngoma

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Interim Injunction (imaging Order) / Ruling on Return Date After Ex Parte Interim Injunction and Cross Applications to Vary/discharge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ex parte imaging order should be maintained, varied, or discharged
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant failed in its duty of full and frank disclosure
  3. 3 Whether the scope of the order (including provision of information and affidavit) was necessary and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The ex parte imaging order was justified due to the Defendant's unexplained copying, uploading, and printing of confidential documents close to her resignation and imminent employment with a competitor, combined with incomplete disclosure to the Claimant. However, the scope of the order regarding provision of information and affidavit was too broad and imprecise and required variation. There was no material failure of full and frank disclosure by the Claimant except as to the breadth and timescale of the information provisions, which is remedied by narrowing the order. The Claimant's application for direct access to imaged material was refused; standard disclosure by the Defendant's...

Court Disposition

Order maintained in part, varied in part; Claimant's application for direct access to imaged material refused; directions for disclosure by Defendant's solicitors ordered.

Orders

  • Imaging order of 15 April 2026 maintained but paragraphs 10 and 11 (provision of information and affidavit) and Schedule 2 (Listed Items) to be varied and narrowed.
  • Custody of imaged devices/accounts to be transferred to Defendant's solicitors, subject to undertakings, for the duration of proceedings.