The Hedgehog Golf Company Ltd v Hauser

A perpetual injunction may restrain the improper disclosure of confidential information where the evidence establishes a well-founded risk of disclosure without consent. Relevant circumstances include threats to damage the claimant, an expressed intention to disclose information, refusal to give appropriate undertakings, and previous disregard for the claimant’s rights. The injunction should be confined to confidential information and may properly be narrower than an interlocutory order.

The claimant company sought a perpetual injunction preventing its former director and shareholder, Frank Hauser, from disclosing confidential information. The claim followed disputes concerning the claimant’s patent business, Mr Hauser’s resignation as a director, threats to assist an opposing litigant and alleged threats to disclose information to competitors. Interlocutory injunctions had previously been granted and continued pending trial.

The central issue was whether the evidence justified permanent injunctive relief and, if so, the appropriate scope of the order.

1. Relief granted. The claimant was well justified in fearing that, unless restrained, Mr Hauser would disclose confidential information without consent. The court would grant a perpetual injunction restraining him from improperly disclosing confidential information.
2. The assessment was based on the evidence as a whole. Material considerations included Mr Hauser’s previous blatant disregard for the claimant’s rights, his stated intention to destroy or damage the company, threats to assist Masters Golf Company in litigation against the claimant, and his refusal to undertake that he would not use specialist knowledge acquired as a director after leaving office.
3. Mr Hauser’s conduct after the interlocutory order reinforced the risk. His witness statement in separate patent proceedings referred extensively to the application supporting the claimant’s patent. The court did not need to decide whether that conduct breached the existing order. It demonstrated a willingness to disclose information damaging to the claimant even where disclosure might risk breach of the order.
4. The final injunction was to last indefinitely, but its precise terms required further submissions. The court’s provisional view was that the perpetual injunction should be narrower than the interlocutory injunctions.