[2025] EWHC 2759 (Ch)

Mr Timol plainly used the confidential information in signing off the structure, its further development, marketing and implementation.

This was because he had in his head the key features of the Nemaura structure which I found in the 2023 Judgment formed the core of the Claimant’s confidential information.

Therefore, by taking decisions on the basis of this information such as signing off the structure in the manner set out in (1), he was using that information. It was both being used and considered to reach the decision, and was also being used in the decision reached, because it was a decision to proceed with a structure of that nature i.e. with those features.

In the first liability trial, I had not found that such information was considered by Mr Timol and had found that Mr Timol was not liable. That was why the Claimant could not succeed on ground 1 of his appeal to the Court of Appeal (explained further below in section 4). Snowden LJ considered that Mr Hill could not point to the necessary factual foundation in my 2023 Judgment for the proposition that Mr Timol considered the information in (2) above rather than just signing off the Nemaura project. However, now it was plain that these features were considered by Timol, this was sufficient to found liability in breach of confidence.

Further, Mr Timol knew that the information did come from the Claimant and therefore was also jointly liable and liable in unlawful means conspiracy, and the further material now before me, such as the material referred to in the Court of Appeal Judgment as alerting Mr Timol to Mr Corrigan’s complaint, showed that it was plain that Mr Timol did have this knowledge.

The First Defendant- OneE Group Limited- was the primary wrongdoer in relation to the acts complained of against Mr Timol, and that Mr Timol could not be liable for signing off the structure, its further development, marketing or implementation unless he knew that it used the Claimant’s confidential information, in which case he would be jointly liable. Therefore a key dispute on the law opened up between the parties.

Mr Timol did not know the minutiae of the tax planning in the Nemaura structure or anything close to that, and did not know it contained information emanating from the Claimant.

Therefore, Mr Timol was not liable for breach of confidence, joint liability or unlawful means conspiracy.

It was common ground that there could not be liability for breach of confidence through Mr Timol signing off the structure without Mr Timol knowing at the time some or all of the key features of the Nemaura structure (which I found in my 2023 Judgment came from the Claimant’s confidential information).

It was also common ground that knowledge on Mr Timol’s part that the information came from the Claimant was sufficient knowledge to satisfy the relevant part of the test for joint liability and unlawful means conspiracy.

The difference between the parties was whether, if Mr Timol knew of the relevant features of the Nemaura structure at the time of signing off (but did not know that the information came from the Claimant), he could be primarily liable for breach of confidence.

Mr Timol can be liable for breach of confidence whether or not he knew at the time of signing off the Nemaura structure that the structure used the Claimant’s information.

The documentation and evidence now available makes clear that Mr Timol did know at the time of such sign-off the key features of the Nemaura structure that it shared with the structure devised by the Claimant.

Therefore, in signing off the Nemaura structure, he misused the Claimant’s confidential information, and is liable for breach of confidence.

He also misused such confidential information in discussing the structure with others as set out below.

Importantly and in any event, he was aware that the Nemaura structure used key features that had come from the Claimant, and in my judgment is also jointly liable for breach of confidence and liable for unlawful means conspiracy.

The factual background set out in the 2023 Judgment.

The findings in the 2023 Judgment.

The further material disclosed by the Fourth Defendant, Mr Johnson.

The Court of Appeal Judgment.

The case pleaded against Mr Timol for the retrial and his response to it.

The relevant substantive legal principles.

The witnesses.

What conclusions can be drawn from Mr Timol not having disclosed the further material and his explanations for this.

Key factual findings.

My conclusions on the claims against Mr Timol.