Espire Infolabs Limited v Amit Mohan Sharma

Summary judgment is appropriate where a defence or counterclaim has no real prospect of success and no compelling reason requires a trial. A detailed settlement agreement with clear confidentiality, deletion and non-contact obligations may be enforced summarily where documentary evidence establishes breach and the agreement makes the payment repayable as a debt. A counterclaim based on matters resolved by the agreement, or on alleged ongoing abuse unsupported by evidence, does not justify a trial. Continuing injunctive relief must remain proportionate: a permanent injunction requires clear justification, while a time-limited order may be appropriate.

The claimant, an IT services company, sought summary judgment on its claim that the defendant had breached a settlement agreement by retaining, threatening to disclose and using confidential customer information. It also sought repayment of the termination payment and continuation of interim injunctions. The defendant denied some emails and advanced a counterclaim alleging pre-agreement wrongdoing, abuse of process, harassment and related harm. The issues were whether the documentary evidence established breaches, whether the defence or counterclaim had any real prospect of success or other compelling reason for trial, and what continuing relief was proportionate.

The claimant’s application for summary judgment succeeded. The alternative strike-out application did not require determination.

1. The court applied the summary judgment test in CPR 24.3. Judgment is appropriate where the opposing party has no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason for a trial. The principles were considered in Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch) and approved in AC Ward & Sons v Catlin (Five) Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1098. Both limbs were satisfied.
2. The settlement agreement was detailed and clearly governed the parties’ future conduct. Its taxation provisions supported the claimant’s position, and the defendant identified no proper basis for avoiding the agreement. The emails and text messages established clear breaches of the obligations to delete, refrain from using or disclosing confidential information, and avoid contact with customers or clients. The contractual provision making the termination payment immediately repayable as a debt therefore provided a clear basis for judgment for repayment.
3. The counterclaim was also hopeless. Claims based on conduct before the agreement were defeated by the settlement. Allegations of continuing abuse of process or harassment had no evidential basis. The claimant’s attempts to address continuing threats and breaches were reasonable in the circumstances.
4. Continuing injunctive relief was justified, but a permanent injunction required clearer justification. A four-year period was more proportionate, with liberty to apply for discharge. The order was to permit employment-seeking, limit any further affidavit to specified data-retention issues, and require any damages inquiry application within a modest period. An agreed draft order, with written submissions on unresolved matters, was to be filed within 14 days of hand-down.