Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
High Court case on an ex parte imaging order over an employee’s devices and cloud accounts, with partial variation of the order and refusal of direct claimant access to the imaged material.
Vertical Aerospace Group Ltd v Ngoma [2026] EWHC 1096 (KB) (08 May 2026)
The High Court upheld an imaging order against a former employee joining a competitor, but narrowed overbroad information-provision requirements and rejected discharge.
Interim injunction application over alleged misuse of confidential customer data was granted in part, including affidavit evidence and limited springboard relief.
The court found a high degree of assurance that the claimant would establish misuse of confidential information at trial, that the potential business damage was very serious, that incriminating documents were in the defendant’s possession, and that there was a real risk of destruction. The imaging order was proportionate and justified. The broad disclosure order was refused as disproportionate, but a narrow order limited to specific emails was granted.
Source excerpt
Darchem Engineering Ltd v Richardson [2025] EWHC 1812 (KB) (18 July 2025)
The High Court granted an imaging order and a narrow disclosure order after finding strong evidence that a former employee sent confidential material to personal email accounts.
The High Court refused a claimant's application for early disclosure of bank statements and electronic messages after an imaging order, finding the fraud case too speculative.
Acasta European Insurance Company Ltd v Emmiera Group Ltd [2025] EWHC 1168 (Ch) (15 May 2025)
The High Court refused early disclosure from an imaging order, holding that the claimant had not shown a strong prima facie case of dishonesty or cover-up.
Given the respondent's failure to comply with disclosure obligations, evidence of undisclosed WhatsApp messages, deletion of laptop data after litigation was contemplated, and the real risk of concealment or destruction of relevant documents, an imaging order is justified and proportionate. The order is limited to the minimum necessary to preserve evidence, with appropriate safeguards for privacy and privilege.
Source excerpt
There is an exceptionally strong prima facie case of unfair prejudice due to prohibited sales to Russia, concealment of accounts, and breach of fiduciary and statutory duties by the First Respondent. Urgent interim relief is justified to preserve evidence, protect the business, and prevent frustration of court orders. The legal tests for mandatory injunctions, imaging orders, and passport orders are satisfied.
Source excerpt
Nix v Emerdata Ltd [2024] EWHC 125 (Comm) (04 January 2024)
There is clear evidence that Mr Nix failed to comply with disclosure obligations regarding electronic messages, and aggravating factors exist, including deletion and zero-filling of devices and misleading assurances. There is a real risk of concealment or destruction of relevant evidence. The imaging order sought is proportionate, with safeguards to protect irrelevant or privileged information. Therefore, an imaging order is justified and appropriate in these circumstances.
Source excerpt
Explore more
