Flowcrete UK Limited & Ors v Vebro Polymers UK Limited & Ors

Flowcrete UK Limited & Ors v Vebro Polymers UK Limited & Ors

Defendants were successful in resisting springboard relief and imaging orders; claimants failed to provide sufficient evidence for relief. Costs should follow success: defendants recover 70% of April hearing costs and 80% of June hearing costs. Disclosure guidance provided to ensure searches are reasonable and proportionate, focusing on relevant custodians, date ranges, and search terms.

Parties
Claimant: Flowcrete UK Limited; Claimant: Flowcrete Group Limited; Claimant: Tremco CPG UK Limited; Defendant: Vebro Polymers UK Limited; Defendant: Vebro Polymers Holdings Limited; Defendant: John Watson; Defendant: Robert Gray
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Costs and Disclosure Guidance Hearings
Outcome
Defendants awarded majority of costs for April and June hearings; disclosure guidance issued.
Legal Topics
Interim Relief, Springboard Injunctions, Breach of Confidence, Restrictive Covenants, Disclosure, Costs Orders
Commercial Law Employment Law Confidential Information Civil Procedure Interim Relief Springboard Injunctions Breach of Confidence Restrictive Covenants +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Flowcrete UK Limited

Claimant

Flowcrete Group Limited

Claimant

Tremco CPG UK Limited

Claimant

Vebro Polymers UK Limited

Defendant

Vebro Polymers Holdings Limited

Defendant

John Watson

Defendant

Robert Gray

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Costs and Disclosure Guidance Hearings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants' confidential information was misappropriated by defendants
  2. 2 Whether springboard relief and imaging orders should be granted
  3. 3 Appropriate scope of disclosure for confidential information and restrictive covenants

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants were successful in resisting springboard relief and imaging orders; claimants failed to provide sufficient evidence for relief. Costs should follow success: defendants recover 70% of April hearing costs and 80% of June hearing costs. Disclosure guidance provided to ensure searches are reasonable and proportionate, focusing on relevant custodians, date ranges, and search terms.

Court Disposition

Defendants awarded majority of costs for April and June hearings; disclosure guidance issued.

Orders

  • Defendants recover 70% of costs for April hearing, balance reserved or in the case.
  • Defendants recover 80% of costs for June hearing.