KB-2025-002427 - [2025] EWHC 1993 (KB)

Discussion and decision

In Aon Mackay J set out the issues to be considered when a court determines whether to exercise its discretion to require service of Affidavit evidence (see [26] of the judgment): the inability of the claimant to plead a case without that relief; the width of the order sought; the saving of costs; the adequacy of damages as a remedy; the need to take pragmatic steps to protect the claimant’s business from future and further loss; and the need to police the order.

In my judgment, these factors all point towards granting the relief sought. The Claimant will be unable to plead its case with precision as to what use its confidential information has been put to without such an order. Paragraph 14 of the draft order is focused and proportionate and targeted at supporting the primary provisions of the draft order, which aim to detain and preserve relevant evidence, wherever it may now be, and put the Claimant in a position to limit future damage. D4 and D5 have agreed that damages would not be an adequate remedy. Finally, such relief could save costs. I do not accept that the requirement to providing particulars in relation to confidential information at any time is unduly onerous.

It follows therefore that I will grant the order sought in respect of service of Affidavit evidence.