XYZ v UVW

An interim confidentiality injunction must be clear and supported by evidence of a real risk; it cannot serve as insurance against possible future misuse. An injunction sought in an English court must satisfy English law even if the underlying contract is governed by foreign law. An order requiring a defendant to account by affidavit for alleged misuse is exceptional, though it may be justified to police existing orders or recover information from third parties. Any derogation from open justice must be necessary and assessed restriction by restriction. The party benefiting from interim relief bears responsibility for securing a prompt return hearing.

XYZ, an employer, alleges that UVW, its employee, downloaded confidential documents shortly before XYZ purported to terminate his employment under a contract governed by foreign law. The proceedings began with a without-notice search and imaging order and interim injunctions. A further return hearing, originally expected in early 2026, was not listed by either party and was eventually listed by the court itself. At that hearing, the parties disputed whether publicity restrictions and injunctions should continue, whether UVW should provide an affidavit, whether the forensic images should be destroyed, and what further directions were needed concerning material used in the foreign proceedings.

1. Further injunctions refused. The court discharged the existing restraint on use of the Listed Items because the imaging and deletion regime had protected them. It refused the proposed injunction concerning a wider category of Confidential Information. The claim and evidence identified no misuse beyond the Listed Items and no evidence that UVW had retained or intended to misuse other confidential information. An inference from alleged earlier evasion, seven months earlier, and the possibility of future disclosure was insufficient to establish a serious issue to be tried. The proposed order was also uncertain and wide-ranging. There was no demonstrated risk before trial, and the breadth of the order would likely chill UVW’s conduct. Although the contract was governed by foreign law, any injunction made by the English court had to comply with English law, including the requirement to state clearly what conduct was prohibited.

2. Affidavit refused. The requested account of possession, deletion and onward disclosure suffered from the same evidential deficiency. Independently, an affidavit of this kind is exceptional: it shifts the burden to the defendant to explain his conduct instead of requiring the claimant to plead its case and use disclosure or requests for further information. Such an order may be appropriate to police other orders or help recover information held by third parties. Those purposes did not apply here. The court applied the principles it found in Aon Ltd. v JLT Reinsurance Brokers Ltd. [2009] EWHC 3448 (QB).

3. Images retained. The imaging regime served to preserve the evidential record. Destroying the images before the ordinary disclosure and case-management process would defeat that purpose. The limited search results, the absence of a further search application to date, and UVW’s personal information did not justify destruction, given the access protections and undertakings already in place.

4. Open justice restrictions narrowed. Applying Civil Procedure Rules 1998 rules 39.2 and 5.4C, and the open-justice principles in Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417, the court continued anonymisation and restrictions on access to the court file. It found real risks to UVW, XYZ and its employees, and a continuing need to protect information alleged to be confidential. It discharged the restriction preventing publication of the court’s order and the prohibitions on informing others about the proceedings, which served an anti-tipping-off purpose and were no longer necessary. It also discharged the restraint on destroying Listed Items; the separate restraint on interference with devices had expired. The proposed reciprocal restrictions were not necessary, and the court made no further ruling on use of material in the foreign proceedings. The parties’ use of that material would bear on any future review of restrictions.

5. Return hearing and final position. The party obtaining interim relief bears the greater responsibility for ensuring a return hearing is listed, so the relief does not continue indefinitely. The court accepted that the failure here resulted from oversight, not deliberate avoidance. The confidentiality claim itself remained for later determination.

This was a first-instance interim hearing. The judgment records these earlier steps in the same proceedings:

1. High Court (King’s Bench Division): O’Farrell J made a without-notice search and imaging order on 14 November 2025. Mansfield J heard the return application in December 2025 and made the December Order.
2. High Court (King’s Bench Division): The December Order was varied on 30 December 2025 and 30 January 2026. Mansfield J listed the further return hearing on the court’s own motion; this judgment varied the existing restrictions and determined the parties’ further applications.