Oral argument
71.In oral argument Mr Barclay also drew attention to what he described as a lack of evidence from Final Touch. There was no evidence from the Dartington team. Ms Ward’s evidence did not, as required in Bolkiah, provide the sort of detail as to the layout of the Leeds office and the patterns of working which would have supported the suggestion that the information barrier erected by Mr Partington is effective. 72.Mr Barclay pointed to Mr Miller’s evidence and invited me to conclude that it established a breach of confidence already. 73.Ms Wickenden argued that Glencairn’s application was flawed from the start because an injunction could only be granted against a party to the action. 74.Otherwise she made two overall submissions: only the approach in Stiedl was relevant to this case and the damage that would be suffered by Glencairn was fanciful; Glencairn had refused to be specific about the confidential information at stake and so inevitably the alleged damage was left vague and insubstantial. Ms Wickenden addressed the arguments on the likelihood of disclosure of any confidential information raised by Mr Sleep and submitted that I should prefer the evidence of Mr Shapiro over that of Mr Miller.