Coll v Floreat Merchant Banking Ltd & Ors
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE HICKINBOTTOM
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Employment Law
- Contract Law
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved a former employee who sued for the return of a work-provided computer, claiming it contained personal and confidential data. The central issues revolved around the ownership of the computer and whether the Defendants breached solicitor's undertakings. The court found no reasonable basis to commence committal proceedings for contempt, refused to allow the Claimant to amend the claim, and upheld the addition of third parties to the claim. The case highlighted the disciplinary jurisdiction of the High Court over solicitors, the enforcement of undertakings, and the compensatory nature of solicitor disciplinary cases.
Judgment
Mr Justice Hickinbottom :
Introduction
There are before the court a number of applications, which involve two core issues.
First, the Claimant seeks permission to bring committal proceedings against the Defendants and Proposed Additional Defendants for breach of a solicitor’s undertaking, which involves consideration of the scope of the jurisdiction of the court to commit for breach of an undertaking given by a solicitor other than an undertaking to the court; as well as whether the court should exercise any discretion it has to allow committal proceedings to be brought on the facts of this case.
Second, the Defendants seek to bring claims against the Third Parties, which gives rise to the question as to whether those claims should be brought within these proceedings or by way of separate action.
Factual Background
The First Defendant (“Floreat”) is a private investment company regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and authorised to carry out regulated activities under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 . The Third Defendant (“Mr Al-Otaibi”) is a Managing Partner of Floreat, as is the Fourth Defendant (“Mr Wilcox”) who is also a consultant with the Proposed Fifth Defendant (“Mishcon de Reya”), a firm of solicitors who are currently on the record in this claim for the First to Fourth Defendants.
Mr Al-Otaibi and the First Third Party (“Mr Eggesbo”) were friends and, from about 2006, business associates. As I understand it, it is uncontroversial that they together launched the Second Defendant (“SWP”) as a vehicle for property investment. Mr Al-Otaibi contends they also founded a second company, Allegiance I A Limited (“Allegiance”), with a similar purpose; although Mr Eggesbo denies that Mr Al-Otaibi has any interest in that company.
The Claimant is a Venezuelan national, and Mr Eggesbo’s sister-in-law. By an Employment Contract dated 7 April 2011, she was employed by Floreat as an environmental and social governance analyst, in which capacity she provided services to SWP.
Under that contract, Floreat was to provide the Claimant with a laptop computer “for business and reasonable personal use” (paragraph 8.1), and the Claimant agreed to return it at Floreat’s request or on the termination of her employment (paragraph 8.2). Floreat reserved the right to intercept and open any communication (including emails and telephone communications) sent or received using any of its systems (paragraph 21.1), and it made clear that such