Linklaters LLP & Anor v Mellish

A confidential-information claim may be brought to an end by agreement through a Tomlin order. Where the parties have agreed clear undertakings, documentary obligations and costs provisions, the court may stay further proceedings on those terms and dispense with a further hearing where the arrangement is straightforward and no party requires one.

The claimants sought to restrain the defendant from disclosing confidential information. The court had previously granted a temporary injunction and continued the relevant orders pending further steps, while the defendant remained absent but engaged through Australian lawyers.

The parties subsequently agreed a Tomlin order. The defendant undertook not to disclose specified information, to destroy confidential documents, to require others to whom documents had been passed to destroy them, and to verify compliance. The question was whether the agreed arrangement should be made an order of the court without a further hearing.

1. The court made the agreed Tomlin order and stayed all further proceedings on the terms in its Schedule, with liberty to apply.
2. The defendant was required to provide written undertakings not to disclose specified confidential information, to destroy documents falling within the agreed definition of confidential documents, and to instruct recipients to do likewise. He was also required to verify that those steps had been completed.
3. The confidential schedule identifying the protected information was properly kept confidential. The arrangement included safeguards enabling the defendant to obtain relevant hearing papers if an alleged breach later required them.
4. As the parties agreed that no hearing was necessary, and the court accepted that the terms were simple and straightforward, the order was made without a further hearing. There was no order as to costs.

The judgment records the procedural history of the same first-instance claim:

• High Court (Queen's Bench Division): a temporary injunction was granted and explained in [2019] EWHC 177 (QB).
• High Court (Queen's Bench Division): the existing orders were continued pending trial or further order, before the parties agreed the Tomlin order recorded in this judgment.