Hattons of London Ltd v The Knightsbridge Collection Limited & Ors

For interim injunctive relief, the court applies the American Cyanamid framework: a serious question to be tried, adequacy of damages, and the balance of convenience. The balance requires identification of the course creating the least irremediable prejudice, having regard to any cross-undertaking in damages.

Springboard relief is available where unlawful use of confidential information has created an existing unfair competitive advantage. It must be confined to the scope and period reasonably necessary to remove that advantage. An affidavit order may be made where focused and proportionate disclosure is needed to plead or protect the claim. Imaging orders are intrusive and require strict proportionality. Applications for such orders must comply with Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 25.17.

The claimant, a rare-coin business, sought interim prohibitory and mandatory injunctions against a company and former employees. It alleged breach of contract, inducement of breach, unlawful means conspiracy and breach of confidence arising from alleged misuse of customer and purchasing data.

The claimant sought orders restraining use of confidential information, requiring preservation and delivery up of material, compelling affidavits, granting springboard relief, and permitting imaging of devices. The defendants disputed the inferences drawn from the evidence and opposed the more intrusive and extensive relief. The central issues were whether interim relief was justified, whether affidavit and imaging orders were proportionate, and the proper scope of any springboard injunction.

1. Interim injunction. The application was granted in part. Applying American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] A.C. 396, there was a serious issue to be tried and damages would not be an adequate remedy. The balance of convenience favoured prohibitory orders concerning confidential information, preservation, delivery up, deletion and destruction. The court considered the evidence both defendant by defendant and holistically, but declined to draw all the claimant’s proposed inferences, particularly those alleging dishonesty.
2. Balance of convenience. The relevant question was which course would cause the least irremediable prejudice. The claimant’s cross-undertaking in damages was a material consideration. The court had a high degree of assurance that the injunction would ultimately prove justified.
3. Affidavits. The court applied the factors identified in Aon Ltd v JLT Renaissance Brokers Ltd [2010] IRLR 600. The claimant could not plead with precision how its confidential information had been used without the order. The proposed requirements were focused and proportionate, could protect the business and might save costs. Affidavit evidence was therefore ordered.
4. Springboard relief. The evidence established unlawful use of confidential information, an unfair competitive advantage, and an advantage that continued to exist. Under Forse v Secarma Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 215, relief had to be no wider or longer than reasonably necessary. The proposed prohibition was excessive, so it was limited to one month after service of the affidavits or further order.
5. Imaging. Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rr 25.15 and 25.17 applied to applications solely for imaging orders. Rule 25.17 required affidavit or affirmation evidence. The court nevertheless declined imaging at that stage because it was intrusive and did not represent the least risk of injustice, particularly while springboard relief remained in force. The issue could be reconsidered after the affidavits.
6. Directions. A speedy trial was appropriate so that the parties could obtain a final determination promptly.