Interim injunctions had been obtained to prevent the defendants carrying out certain banking transactions.
Held: The remedy sought and the claim was extravagant and unlikely to succeed. The injunctions should be discharged. It was not at all clear that the information sought to be protected was confidential according to the evidence, and an injunction was not required to protect documentation pending any trial.
Judges:
Stanley Burnton J
Citations:
[2004] EWHC 2208 (QB)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Suhner and Co AG v Transradio Ltd 1967
The claimants complained at the defendant having registered a company under the name ‘Suhner’. The defendants gave no justification for using the word ‘Suhner’ as part of their name. They claimed that they had the right to form a company in order to . .
Cited – Siskina (owners of Cargo lately on Board) v Distos Compania Naviera SA HL 1979
An injunction was sought against a Panamanian ship-owning company to restrain it from disposing of a fund, consisting of insurance proceeds, in England. The claimant for the injunction was suing the company in a Cyprus court for damages and believed . .
Cited – PA Thomas and Co v Mould QBD 1968
The court urged caution in the grant of an injunction to protect information for which confidence was claimed but where that claim might not succeed. O’Connor J refused to enforce by committal an injunction restraining the defendants from making use . .
Cited – John Zink and Co Limited v Wilkinson CA 1973
Where a party alleged breach of confidence, the pleadings should be sufficiently particular to allow a defendant to know the particular allegations he faced. . .
Cited by:
See Also – Marketmaker Technology Ltd and others v CMC Group Plc and others QBD 12-Jun-2008
(Order discharged on appeal) . .
See Also – Marketmaker Technology (Beijing) Co Ltd and Others v CMC Group Plc and Others QBD 24-Jun-2009
The claimants sought the committal of the fourth defendant for contempt having broken his undertaking to the court to provide details of his means.
Held: The terms of the undertaking were not ambiguous and could not be read in the way . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Banking, Litigation Practice
Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.215941