Personal Management Solutions Ltd & Anor v Brakes Bros Ltd & Ors
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
UK
CORAM
- HIS HON JUDGE CURRAN QC
- sitting as a judge of the High Court
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Intellectual Property Law
- Equity and Trusts
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In the case, Personal Group sought judicial relief against Gee 7 for misuse of its confidential customer information. The court determined that Gee 7 had a duty of confidence and had unlawfully used Personal Group's information which caused potential harm. The court granted an injunction to restrain further use of the confidential information and ordered an assessment of damages for any losses suffered by Personal Group. The conduct of Personal Group and Mr. Wilson did not preclude the claimants from receiving equitable remedies.
This is an action by two associated claimant companies (together “Personal Group”) for damages and for other relief. The claims have been consolidated as each is concerned with the alleged misuse of Personal Group’s confidential information by the second and third defendant companies, through the agency of the first and fourth defendants, by receiving, disseminating and making use of a list of customers of the claimants (“the List”) who were employees of the first Defendant company.
The second and third defendant companies (together “Gee 7”) are associated entities which their managing director, Mr Jon Pardoe, described as being a small but increasingly successful competitor to Personal Group. They competed in particular for the ‘employee benefits’ insurance business of the first Defendant company. Mr Pardoe said that by this litigation and other means Personal Group were attempting to crush Gee 7 at an early stage in its development.
That suggestion raises at the outset the need for a cautious approach by the court. This was a point which Arnold J considered in Vestergaard Frandsen A/S & Ors v Bestnet Europe Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC 657 (Ch) at first instance. He said, at paragraph 104,
‘I entirely accept that, as Laddie J said in Ocular Sciences Ltd v Aspect Vision Care Ltd & Ors [1997] RPC 289 , at 359,
“… it is well recognised that breach of confidence actions can be used to oppress and harass competitors and ex-employees .”
‘It follows that the courts must scrutinise such claims with care to see if they are well-founded or not, which is what I intend to do in the present case. It does not follow that all such claims are unfounded and harassing claims.’
Moreover, in the Supreme Court in Vestergaard Frandsen A/S & Ors v Bestnet Europe Ltd & Ors [2013] 1 WLR 1556 Lord Neuberger, with whom all the other members of the court agreed, said at paragraph 44:
‘… in a modern economy, the law has to maintain a realistic and fair balance between (i) effectively protecting trade secrets (and other intellectual property rights) and (ii) not unreasonably inhibiting competition in the market place. The importance to the economic prosperity of the country of research and development in the commercial world is self-evident, and the protection of intellectual property, including trade secrets, is one of the vital contributions of the law to that end. On the other hand, the law should not discourage former employees from benefiting society and advancing themselv