Armstrong Watson LLP v Persons Unknown

On a return date for an interim injunction, the court may determine the application on paper and in the defendants’ absence where the defendants have been properly served, deliberately failed to engage, and retain a meaningful opportunity to participate or seek discharge or variation.

Continuation of injunctions restraining the use or dissemination of confidential information is appropriate where the original reasons remain sound and subsequent conduct strengthens rather than weakens the case. Derogations from open justice and service directions may be maintained where they are proportionate and consistent with the overriding objective.

The claimant sought continuation of injunctions and related directions previously ordered without notice by Ritchie J in a cyber-hacking claim concerning confidential information allegedly obtained from its IT systems.

The defendants had been served with the order and proceedings but had neither complied nor participated. The claimant therefore applied for the matter to be determined on paper and in the defendants’ absence. The central issues were whether that procedure was appropriate, whether the injunctions should continue, and whether the associated open justice derogations, service provisions and case-management directions should remain in force.

1. Procedure. The court considered CPR rule 23.8(c), the Practice Guidance: Interim Non-Disclosure Orders, and Clarkson v Persons Unknown [2018] EWHC 417 (QB) in deciding that the application could be dealt with on paper. It also considered CPR rule 23.11, section 12(2) of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Pirtek (UK) Limited v Robert Jackson [2017] EWHC 2834 (QB) in deciding that the matter could proceed in the defendants’ absence.
2. The defendants had been served and had known of the return date and application. Their continued failure to engage supported the clear inference that this was deliberate. Their position remained protected because the order permitted them to participate in the proceedings and to seek discharge or variation.
3. The continuation of the injunctions was just and convenient. The reasons given by Ritchie J remained applicable, and nothing had occurred to undermine them. The case concerned the restraint of blackmail and the protection of confidential information stolen in a cyber-hacking incident. The defendants’ subsequent steps to act on their threats made the case for relief stronger.
4. The derogations from open justice and service directions were appropriate and consistent with the overriding objective. Public access to the judgments and non-confidential parts of the orders provided an adequate basis for proceeding without an oral hearing in the circumstances.
5. The directions for future conduct were also appropriate, including provision for a possible application for default judgment and/or summary judgment if the defendants continued not to engage.

The order sought by the claimant was granted.