DRSP Holdings Ltd & Anor v O'Connor & Anor [2021] EWHC 626 (Ch) (19 March 2021)

DRSP Holdings Ltd & Anor v O'Connor & Anor [2021] EWHC 626 (Ch) (19 March 2021)

The court found that the claimants' database right in 'Slate' subsisted and that some acts of extraction by the defendants constituted infringement, but that certain extractions were authorised under the Introducer Agreement or by the claimants' agents. The court rejected the claims for misuse of confidential information and breach of fiduciary duty. The defendants' counterclaim for fees under the Introducer Agreement was partially upheld, but the claim for restitution of £151,433 was not established on the evidence.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 626 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: DRSP Holdings Limited; Claimant: DRSP Limited; Defendant: Thomas O’Connor; Defendant: Abigail O’Connor; Defendant: Octax Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 March 2021
Procedural Posture
High Court Chancery Division (business and Property Courts) / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; counterclaim allowed in part
Legal Topics
Database Right, Misuse of Confidential Information, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Contract Interpretation, Unjust Enrichment
Intellectual Property Contract Equity Database Right Misuse of Confidential Information Breach of Fiduciary Duty Contract Interpretation Unjust Enrichment

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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DRSP Holdings Limited

Claimant

DRSP Limited

Claimant

Thomas O’Connor

Defendant

Abigail O’Connor

Defendant

Octax Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Chancery Division (business and Property Courts) / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants infringed the claimants' database right in the 'Slate' database
  2. 2 Whether there was misuse of confidential information
  3. 3 Whether there was a breach of fiduciary duty

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimants' database right in 'Slate' subsisted and that some acts of extraction by the defendants constituted infringement, but that certain extractions were authorised under the Introducer Agreement or by the claimants' agents. The court rejected the claims for misuse of confidential information and breach of fiduciary duty. The defendants' counterclaim for fees under the Introducer Agreement was partially upheld, but the claim for restitution of £151,433 was not established on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; counterclaim allowed in part

Orders

  • Declaration of subsistence of database right in 'Slate'
  • Declaration of certain acts of infringement by the defendants