Titan Wealth Holdings Limited & Ors v Marian Okunola

After judgment, the court may grant further orders needed to make existing injunctions effective and secure compliance. Such orders may require a judgment debtor to identify devices and online accounts, provide passwords, execute mandates and temporarily surrender devices for inspection or deletion of confidential information. The court may rely on statutory enforcement powers, procedural rules and equitable jurisdiction.

Where the relief is intrusive, the court may apply the more stringent test associated with search-order relief. A very strong case, serious potential harm, possession of confidential information and proportionate safeguards supported the orders. Temporary interference with Article 8 rights was proportionate where replacement devices were offered. A further order authorising another person to execute a mandate on the defendant’s behalf was premature.

This was a post-trial application by the claimants for orders assisting enforcement of final injunctions made after a trial. The trial judgment, [2024] EWHC 2718 (KB), upheld claims for breach of contract, breach of confidence and harassment, awarded damages and required the defendant to procure the irretrievable deletion of confidential information.

The defendant had previously been found in contempt for non-compliance with an interim injunction and had refused to provide devices, passwords and access to online accounts. The application sought password, mandate, device and seized-device orders, including relief concerning data held by the police. The central issues were whether the court had jurisdiction to make the orders and whether the relief was necessary and proportionate.

1. Jurisdiction. The court had jurisdiction to make the password order under sections 7(1) and 7(5) of the Civil Procedure Act 1997, CPR 71 and the court’s equitable jurisdiction. The order could require information about devices, accounts and passwords needed to enforce the judgment and preserve relevant property.
2. The court had jurisdiction under section 39 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to require execution of mandates giving an IT consultant access to online accounts. The reasoning in Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Su [2020] EWHC 865 (Comm) supported the conclusion that there was no relevant distinction between mandates directed to banks and mandates directed to email or social-media providers.
3. The court also had jurisdiction under section 7(5)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act 1997, CPR 25.1 and CPR 25.2, and in equity, to order delivery and temporary custody of devices. The same jurisdiction extended to a device held by the Metropolitan Police once the criminal investigation and proceedings ended.
4. Necessity and proportionality. Although the court did not need to decide whether the more stringent test applicable to search-order relief governed, it applied that test in any event. The claimants had an extremely strong prima facie case because they had succeeded at trial. The previous disclosure of confidential information had caused serious damage, the defendant still possessed confidential information, and self-deletion would not ensure technological irretrievability. Temporary loss of access to devices and engagement of Article 8 rights were proportionate, particularly given the offer of replacement devices.
5. The orders were necessary to make the existing deletion order effective. The court granted the applications, subject to refusing at that stage the further order under section 39(1) authorising another person to execute the mandate if the defendant failed to do so. That additional step was premature because the mandate order itself was only a backup to the password order.