Vertical Aerospace Group Limited v Thandiwe Ngoma

An imaging order is an exceptional preservation remedy. It may be granted without notice where there is a strong prima facie case, very serious potential damage, clear evidence of relevant material in the defendant’s possession, a real risk of destruction if notice is given, and proportionality. An image is ordinarily preserved by an independent expert and is not a substitute for disclosure. After imaging, the defendant’s solicitors should normally review the material using focused search terms agreed with the claimant or approved by the court. A provision requiring an affidavit may be integral to an imaging order, but its scope must be necessary, proportionate, precise and appropriately time-limited. There is no absolute requirement to address the duty of full and frank disclosure in a distinct written section of an affidavit or skeleton argument.

The claimant, an aerospace and technology company, sought to preserve and obtain access to electronic material allegedly containing confidential information after the defendant, a departing senior employee, had copied, printed or uploaded sensitive documents and was moving to a competitor.

On 15 April 2026, Eyre J granted an imaging order without notice. The defendant applied to discharge or vary that order, alleging inadequate justification, delay, disproportionality, non-compliance with the model order and failures of full and frank disclosure. The claimant sought access to relevant material from the images after removal of privileged, personal and obviously irrelevant material. The issues concerned the validity and scope of the imaging order, the information and affidavit provisions, and the proper method for reviewing the preserved material.

1. The imaging order was maintained in principle. The application without notice was justified by the cumulative effect of the unexplained copying, printing and uploading of commercially sensitive documents, their timing close to the defendant’s resignation, her imminent move to a competitor, and her failure initially to identify some of the most significant documents. The threshold of necessity was met.
2. The claimant had a strong prima facie case and satisfied the applicable conditions: the potential damage was very serious, there was clear evidence that relevant material was in the defendant’s possession, there was a real risk of destruction or removal if notice were given, and the order was proportionate. A preservation order alone would not have provided an adequate safeguard.
3. Delay was relevant but fact-sensitive. The period between the IT discoveries and the application, including Easter and continuing correspondence, did not eliminate the urgency required for without notice relief.
4. The requirement for an affidavit confirming access to all relevant devices and accounts was integral to the effectiveness of the imaging order. However, the wider information requirements were too broad and imprecise, particularly because the definition of listed items was not time-limited and extended to information concerning the claimant. Paragraphs 10 and 11 and the related schedule were therefore to be varied and narrowed.
5. The court rejected the claimant’s proposed interrogation of the images. The ordinary course was for the defendant’s solicitors, with expert assistance, to review the preserved material using focused search terms agreed with the claimant and to disclose relevant material. The claimant had not shown that departure from that course was necessary or proportionate.
6. The court explained that CEF Holdings v Mundey contained obiter observations rather than an absolute rule requiring a separate written statement of the full and frank disclosure duty. Such a statement may be good practice, but omission did not itself require discharge of the order.
7. The images were to remain available to the defendant’s solicitors, subject to suitable undertakings, and directions and costs were to follow if not agreed.

Not an appeal. The judgment concerned consequential applications relating to an imaging order granted without notice by Eyre J on 15 April 2026.