Personal Management Solutions Ltd & Anor v Brakes Bros Ltd & Ors

Where liability has been established and assessment of damages is adjourned without express limitation, the claimant may reformulate and particularise its quantum case in light of further disclosure and evidence. The court may make further findings of fact at the damages stage, including findings concerning the extent of unauthorised use where that issue spans liability and quantum. Procedural distinctions between liability and quantum are not absolute. The court should avoid allowing form to defeat substance or prevent a proper assessment of loss. A claim is not abusive merely because its fuller particularisation requires additional evidence, particularly where it was implicit in the original pleaded case.

The claimants succeeded at a speedy trial before HHJ Curran QC on a claim for breach of confidence concerning business information used by competing employee-benefit providers. Liability was established and damages were adjourned for later assessment. The Master subsequently restricted the assessment to losses arising from individual policyholders switching provider and limited consequential disclosure.

The claimants appealed. They contended that their original case included loss of the wider Brakes contract and that the adjournment permitted them to particularise that case and seek disclosure concerning the defendants’ earlier negotiations with Brakes. The central issue was whether HHJ Curran had confined the damages assessment to the narrow basis adopted by the Master.

The appeal was allowed. The Master was wrong to limit the assessment of damages to losses arising only from individual policyholders switching provider.

1. HHJ Curran had adjourned all matters going to quantum. He imposed no terms of reference or other express restriction on the scope of the later assessment. The claim that the Brakes contract was lost because of the defendants’ unlawful conduct had been present in the original Schedule of Loss.
2. The Points of Claim did not introduce a fundamentally new claim. They particularised the existing quantum case by explaining that the defendants’ access to confidential information enabled them to compete for and secure the Brakes contract. The amended figures were also essentially arithmetic changes to the original claim.
3. There is no bright line between liability and quantum. Further facts may properly be found at a damages hearing, including facts concerning the extent of unauthorised use where those facts bear on the amount of loss.
4. The expanded case was not an abuse of process. Applying the broad, merits-based approach identified in Johnson v Gore Wood and Co [2002] 2 AC 1, the court considered the circumstances of the speedy trial, the limited disclosure, and the interests of justice. The claimants should be permitted to investigate and prove the full extent of loss rather than being capped by the defendants’ limited pre-trial disclosure. The rule in Henderson v Henderson did not prevent the claim.
5. The Master’s order was set aside. The appeal was allowed, the bulk of the defendants’ application was dismissed, and the claimants’ disclosure application was allowed in principle. The parties were directed to seek agreement on disclosure and consequential directions, with outstanding issues to return to the judge if necessary.

• High Court (Queen's Bench Division): The appeal from the decision of Master Davison dated 10 November 2016 was allowed. The Master’s restriction of the damages assessment was set aside.
• Previous trial: HHJ Curran QC had entered judgment for the claimants on liability on 24 October 2014 and adjourned assessment of damages.