PURSUIT MARKETING LTD AND ANOTHER AGAINST KYLE THOMSON AND OTHERS [2023] ScotCS CSOH_22 (21 March 2023)

PURSUIT MARKETING LTD AND ANOTHER AGAINST KYLE THOMSON AND OTHERS [2023] ScotCS CSOH_22 (21 March 2023)

The pursuers have a relevant case for interdict and orders for return and deletion of specifically identified confidential information against the first and second defenders, based on averments of accessing and copying such information. However, the case based on actual use or disclosure cannot succeed due to lack of averment or evidential basis. The case against the third defender is irrelevant as there are no averments of copying or sufficient basis for inference of breach.

Citation
[2023] ScotCS CSOH_22
Parties
Pursuer: Pursuit Marketing Limited; Pursuer: Your Shortlist Limited; First Defender: Kyle Thomson; Second Defender: Laura Lochhead; Third Defender: Michelle Hodge
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
21 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial, Employment) / Debate on Relevancy and Specification, Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Partial dismissal; case proceeds to proof against first and second defenders on limited grounds; dismissed against third defender.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Confidentiality Obligations, Employee Duties Post Termination, Interdicts, Return and Deletion of Confidential Information
Employment Law Contract Law Confidential Information Restrictive Covenants Confidentiality Obligations Employee Duties Post Termination Interdicts Return and Deletion of Confidential Information

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

Parties

Pursuit Marketing Limited

Pursuer

Your Shortlist Limited

Pursuer

Kyle Thomson

First Defender

Laura Lochhead

Second Defender

Michelle Hodge

Third Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial, Employment) / Debate on Relevancy and Specification, Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers have a relevant case for interdict and orders for return/deletion of confidential information against the first and second defenders.
  2. 2 Whether the pursuers have a relevant case against the third defender for misuse of confidential information.
  3. 3 Whether the contractual confidentiality clauses are enforceable in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers have a relevant case for interdict and orders for return and deletion of specifically identified confidential information against the first and second defenders, based on averments of accessing and copying such information. However, the case based on actual use or disclosure cannot succeed due to lack of averment or evidential basis. The case against the third defender is irrelevant as there are no averments of copying or sufficient basis for inference of breach.

Court Disposition

Partial dismissal; case proceeds to proof against first and second defenders on limited grounds; dismissed against third defender.

Orders

  • Sustain first pleas-in-law for first and second defenders to the extent of excluding from probation averments of actual use/disclosure to sixth defender.
  • Repel pursuers' pleas-in-law as they relate to the third defender.