Amberside Energy (Development) Limited & Ors v Hamza Ahmed & Anor

Interim confidentiality relief must be defined with precision and framed proportionately. An employer cannot restrain a former employee from using general skill, experience and knowledge acquired during employment, as distinct from confidential business information. An injunction must identify clearly the information protected, because an uncertain order exposes the respondent to contempt proceedings and may unjustifiably restrict legitimate work. Even where confidential information may have been retained, the court must tailor the relief to the alleged wrongdoing. The American Cyanamid approach remains applicable: the court considers a serious issue to be tried, adequacy of damages, the balance of convenience and, where appropriate, preservation of the status quo.

The claimants sought interim injunctive relief against a former employee and his new employer. They alleged that the former employee had retained confidential information concerning the Amberside Capacity Estimation System, including methodology, formulas, business plans and related documents, and that the new employer had used that information.

The defendants accepted that there was a serious issue to be tried for interim purposes but disputed misuse, causation and the breadth of the proposed order. The court also considered whether the claimants should delay serving particulars of claim pending further evidence and disclosure. The central questions were whether relief was justified under the American Cyanamid principles and, if so, how it should be framed.

1. Interim relief and pleading. Applying American Cyanamid, the court found a serious issue to be tried and that damages would not be an adequate remedy. The balance of convenience nevertheless required careful consideration of the risk that an order would restrict legitimate business activity. The claimants were required to plead their case promptly; there was no sufficient basis for delaying service of particulars of claim until further disclosure. The deadline was fixed as 9 December 2024.
2. Precision and proportionality. The proposed order was too wide because its definitions were non-exhaustive and circular. Confidential information must be identified sufficiently precisely to enable the respondent to know what conduct is prohibited. Expressions such as “including but not limited to” and information that “would reasonably be regarded as confidential” were impermissibly vague in the proposed form. The court also rejected the proposition that retention of confidential information automatically justified broad delivery-up or preservation relief.
3. Scope of protected information. The court distinguished general skill, experience and knowledge, which a former employee may use in subsequent employment, from special knowledge of the former employer’s business. Relief was therefore confined to documents containing ACES, its methodology and formulas, future business plans and strategy, and specified categories of documents. A public-domain carve-out was required, consistently with the employment contract.
4. Orders. The evidence did not justify an injunction in the proposed form against BCC. Its undertakings were sufficient, provided they were given to the court. The first defendant’s contractual undertaking was insufficient, so tailored delivery-up, listing and verification provisions were directed against him. A further proposed provision was refused as unnecessary and disproportionate. Costs were reserved and the claimants were required to give a cross-undertaking in damages.