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

Discussion and decision

The applicable principles to be applied by the court when considering whether to grant such springboard relief were set out in QBE Management Services (UK) Ltd v Dymoke [2012] EWHC 80 (QB); [2012] I.R.L.R. 458; (2012) 162 N.L.J. 180 (Haddon-Cave J, as he then was) at [239] et seq. Once the relevant conditions have been satisfied, the court asks whether it is in the interests of justice and proportionality to impose a springboard injunction (CEF Holdings Ltd v Mundey [2012] EWHC 1524 (QB); [2012] I.R.L.R. 912; [2012] F.S.R. 35 (Silber J)).

Sir Terence Etherton MR gave guidance on the exercise of the jurisdiction to grant springboard relief in Forse v Secarma Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 215; [2019] I.R.L.R. 587. He explained that such orders are not punitive but are intended to prevent the wrongdoer from benefitting from any commercial advantage wrongly achieved. Such injunctions must be no greater in scope and for no greater period than is reasonable to remove the unfair advantage secured by the defendant, and the court must estimate what that period will be and limit the relief accordingly (see especially at [33] and [57]– [60]).

In my judgment the Claimant has been able to show unlawful use of its confidential information; that the Defendants thereby gained an unfair competitive advantage over the Claimant; and that the advantage still exists at the moment and will continue to have effect unless the relief sought is granted. However, having regard to the principles set out in Forse, the terms of the relief sought are greater in scope than is necessary and proportionate. I will therefore make an order limited to one month after service of the Affidavit evidence or further order.

I should add that I have taken into account that this order could theoretically have a very serious impact on D1. However, if, as seems to be the case, D1 is in the early stages of liquidation then it will in fact be of limited if any impact.