Seatreiver International Holdings Ltd v Daly & Anor

Interim springboard relief requires more than a serious issue to be tried. The court must assess the evidence of misuse, the likely unfair competitive advantage, the adequacy of damages, and proportionality as to duration and scope. Considerable caution is required where evidence of actual misuse is limited. Relief should not place the claimant in a better position than it would have occupied absent the misuse. A springboard injunction may nevertheless be granted where confidential information creates a real and imminent risk of unfair competition and lesser relief would not protect the claimant. The order should be confined to the customers, products and period justified by the evidence.

The claimant sought interim relief against former employee Andrew Daly, his company and three respondents alleged to have received and misused confidential commercial information concerning illuminated party balloons. The respondents consented to joinder and to certain confidentiality, preservation and delivery orders, but opposed a proposed 12-month springboard injunction and an order requiring a joint information-technology search.

The court considered whether there was a serious issue to be tried, whether damages were adequate, and where the balance of convenience lay. The central issue was whether the evidence justified a springboard injunction, and if so, its proper duration and scope.

1. Interim principles. The court applied American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396. There was a serious issue to be tried concerning misuse of confidential information, including alleged product copying. The court could have some regard to the apparent strength of the evidence and merits where delay meant that a trial might not occur before the proposed period expired, but it had to avoid findings requiring full disclosure and cross-examination.
2. Springboard relief. The principles summarised in QBE Management Services (UK) Ltd v Dymoke [2012] EWHC 80 & 116 respectively and Vestergarard Frandsen A/S v Bestnet Europe Ltd [2009] EWHC 1456 (Ch) required caution. Apart from the product-copying case, there was little hard and cogent evidence of actual misuse or of business obtained through the confidential pricing information. Nevertheless, the evidence disclosed a serious case that confidential information might give the respondents an unfair competitive advantage in seeking business for the forthcoming buying year. Ordinary confidentiality and delivery orders would not provide sufficient protection, and damages would not be adequate for the threatened loss of established business.
3. Proportionality. A 12-month injunction was justified, but an order covering all 36 identified customers, distributors and agents would be disproportionate and unduly restrictive at the interlocutory stage. The injunction was therefore limited to Tesco, Asda, Sainsburys, Poundland, Poundworld, Walmart, Target and Walgreens. No equivalent injunction was justified concerning the marble-balloon supplier, which was already known to the respondents and whose legitimate commercial interests had to be considered.
4. Ancillary relief. The respondents were required to comply with the agreed confidentiality, preservation and delivery obligations, subject to the court’s limitation that they need not preserve or deliver information they did not possess. The proposed joint IT-expert imaging and search order was refused as unnecessary and disproportionate. A springboard injunction was granted in limited form for 12 months.

First-instance interim application in the High Court. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.