Vertical Aerospace Group Ltd v Ngoma [2026] EWHC 1096 (KB) (08 May 2026)

Vertical Aerospace Group Ltd v Ngoma [2026] EWHC 1096 (KB) (08 May 2026)

The court held that the imaging order was justified on a without notice basis due to the Defendant's conduct, the nature and timing of the confidential information handling, and the risk of destruction. There was a strong prima facie case and no lesser measure would suffice. However, the provision of information and affidavit requirements in the original order were too broad and imprecise and required narrowing. The Claimant's failures in full and frank disclosure were not material except as to those paragraphs, and did not justify discharge of the order. The Defendant's solicitors should manage the initial disclosure from imaged material, with the Claimant gaining access only after...

Citation
[2026] EWHC 1096 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Vertical Aerospace Group Limited; Defendant: Thandiwe Ngoma
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application (imaging Order) in Civil Proceedings / Return Date Hearing Following Without Notice Interim Injunction
Outcome
Imaging order continued with variation; provision of information and affidavit requirements narrowed; Defendant's application to discharge refused; Claimant's application for access to imaged material granted subject to safeguards.
Legal Topics
Imaging Orders, Interim Injunctions, Without Notice Applications, Full and Frank Disclosure, Restrictive Covenants, Preservation of Evidence
Civil Procedure Employment Law Confidential Information Imaging Orders Interim Injunctions Without Notice Applications Full and Frank Disclosure Restrictive Covenants +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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vertical Aerospace Group Limited

Claimant

Thandiwe Ngoma

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application (imaging Order) in Civil Proceedings / Return Date Hearing Following Without Notice Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the imaging order and associated mandatory injunctions should be continued, varied, or discharged
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant failed in its duty of full and frank disclosure on the without notice application
  3. 3 Whether the terms of the order, particularly the provision of information and affidavit requirements, were necessary and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the imaging order was justified on a without notice basis due to the Defendant's conduct, the nature and timing of the confidential information handling, and the risk of destruction. There was a strong prima facie case and no lesser measure would suffice. However, the provision of information and affidavit requirements in the original order were too broad and imprecise and required narrowing. The Claimant's failures in full and frank disclosure were not material except as to those paragraphs, and did not justify discharge of the order. The Defendant's solicitors should manage the initial disclosure from imaged material, with the Claimant gaining access only after...

Court Disposition

Imaging order continued with variation; provision of information and affidavit requirements narrowed; Defendant's application to discharge refused; Claimant's application for access to imaged material granted subject to safeguards.

Orders

  • Imaging order of 15 April 2026 continued subject to variation of paragraphs 10 and 11 to narrow the scope of provision of information and affidavit requirements.
  • Defendant to provide affidavit confirming provision of access to all relevant devices and accounts and addressing hard copy confidential material transfers.