Waste Managed Limited v Stephen Wilce & Ors.

Interim injunctive relief requires a serious issue to be tried and an assessment of the balance of convenience, including the adequacy of damages. An adverse conclusion on damages does not determine the application automatically. The court must identify which course carries the lower risk of injustice if it later proves wrong.

Mandatory interim relief carries additional risk because it requires positive action and may alter the status quo. A high degree of assurance of success is relevant, although exceptional circumstances may justify relief without it. Delay, undertakings, evidential uncertainty and the likely effect on each party remain important factors.

Waste Managed Limited, successor to CheaperWaste Limited, sought interim prohibitory and mandatory injunctions against former employees, associated companies and individuals. The relief concerned alleged misuse of confidential information and a confidential business model in establishing and operating a competing waste-management business.

The claimant also sought orders for delivery up, preservation of documents and witness statements. Separately, Anthony Green applied to strike out the claim against him or obtain summary judgment, arguing that the conspiracy case was speculative. The central issues were whether there was a serious issue to be tried, how the balance of convenience should be assessed, and whether the pleaded case against Mr Green was legally and factually arguable.

1. Interim prohibitory relief. The court applied the principles in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd and Films Rover International Ltd v Cannon Film Sales Ltd. The claimant had to establish a serious issue to be tried and, if that threshold was met, the course carrying the lower risk of injustice if the decision proved wrong. The adequacy of damages formed part of the balance-of-convenience assessment and was not determinative by itself.
2. There was a serious issue as to whether the confidential business model, considered as a whole, was confidential. However, the claimant had not established a serious issue that the defendants had misused it. The case was highly inferential, with evidential gaps that would require disclosure and trial evidence. The prohibitory relief was therefore refused.
3. Alternative balance of convenience. Even if there had been a serious issue as to misuse, damages would not have been adequate for the claimant or, particularly if the injunction caused insolvency, for the defendants. The claimant’s financial modelling was insufficiently supported by clear assumptions and data. The claimant had also delayed unreasonably after it had sufficient information to apply, adopting an inadequately justified wait-and-see approach. The delay increased the potential disruption to the defendants’ established business model. Overall, refusing relief carried the lower risk of injustice.
4. Interim mandatory relief. The court applied the principles summarised in Nottingham Building Society v Eurodynamics Systems plc and approved in Zockoll Group Ltd v Mercury Communications Ltd. The court lacked the necessary high degree of assurance that the claimant would succeed at trial, and no exceptional circumstances justified mandatory relief without it. The delivery-up, copying and witness-statement orders were refused.
5. Strike-out. Although merely being a director was not itself an unlawful act, there were triable issues concerning the existence, purpose and terms of the alleged unlawful means conspiracy, its participants and Mr Green’s role. The strike-out application was refused.
6. The injunction application and strike-out application were refused. The parties were invited to agree the form of order, including confidentiality arrangements and recording the undertakings offered by the defendants.