The claimant company sought to restrain its former employee from anticipated misuse of its confidential information.
Held: Stanley Burnton LJ, in a paragraph with which the other members of the court agreed, said: ‘[counsel for the claimant] told the judge that it was normal practice in claims for confidentiality injunctions for the service of particulars of claim to be deferred until after the application for an interim injunction has been dealt with. If that is the normal practice, I consider that it should be discontinued. Like Tugendhat J, I consider that it is in the interests of justice and the efficient and fair conduct of proceedings that the claimant’s case be defined and pleaded as soon as possible, so that the defendant knows precisely what is the case against her, and so does the judge’
The court’s power (confirmed by the court) to grant barring out relief should only exceptionally be used in support of an action by an employer against an employee.
Judges:
Maurice Kay LJ, Staney Burnton LJ, Lewison LJ
Citations:
[2012] EWCA Civ 156, [2012] 3 All ER 129, [2012] ICR 981, [2012] CP Rep 22, [2012] FSR 33, [2012] WLR(D) 40
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Bains and Others v Moore and Others QBD 15-Feb-2017
The claimant anti-asbestos campaigners complained that the defendant investigators had infringed their various rights of privacy. They now sought discovery to support the claim.
Held: the contents of the witness statements do show that it is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Information
Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.451446
