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

The parties’ submissions at and for the hearing

The Claimant

The Claimant invited the court to make the following conclusions on the basis of the evidence on the basis that they could “be deduced, either through necessary inference from the primary facts, or through reasonable inference”:

D1 was established by D8 and some combination of D2 – D7.

The purpose of establishing D1 was to emulate the Claimant’s business and ultimately cannibalise its custom.

In order to reduce the cost of establishing the business, and ultimately maximise the immediate-term return for the Defendants, the Defendants set out to copy the Claimant’s business so far as possible and exploit its customer base.

To that end, the Defendants conspired to compete with the Claimant and to misappropriate its confidential information (including its customer data), whilst D2 – D7 remained employed by the Claimant. In so doing, the Defendants knew and understood that harm would be caused to the Claimant.

D2 – D7’s sickness absence was dishonest. From their perspective it had three advantages: (1) it enabled them to work for, and develop, D1’s business; (2) they retained access to the Claimant’s systems and so allowed them to exfiltrate its confidential information; and (3) they continued to receive pay and benefits from the Claimant.

Their access to the Claimant’s systems was done solely to misappropriate the Claimant’s confidential information and to exploit it for their own purposes.

When working for D1, D2 – D7 have worked from D1’s premises from time to time.

The Defendants have made direct sales approaches to the Claimant’s customers to solicit their custom to the Claimant’s detriment. It is also reasonable to infer that the Defendants have allowed the Claimant’s customers to believe (wrongly) that they were dealing with the Claimant.

The Defendants’ actions have (and likely will) cause serious reputational harm to the Claimant, which harm cannot easily be quantified.

The Defendants’ plan was necessarily unlawful and involved unlawful means conspiracy, breach of contract and inducement of breach.

D1’s business was an unlawful enterprise. Had the Defendants not acted unlawfully, D1 simply would not exist, or would not be in a position to trade in competition with the Claimant

The Claimant submitted that the Defendants’ conduct was such that it could clearly be inferred that they would not abide by their legal obligations unless restrained by the court, and that springboard relief was necessary to remove any competitive advantage the Defendants have gained from their unlawful conduct to date. Although the Claimant accepted that the court needed to consider the position in respect of each Defendant separately it was important not to place the evidence in silos and that the court should look at the evidence holistically.

The Claimant’s submissions on the relief that was primarily in dispute are addressed below.

D4 and D5

In their written submissions counsel for D4 and D5 agreed for the purposes of the hearing that there was a serious issue to be tried and that damages would not be an adequate remedy. Each submitted though that, where D4 and D5 had already offered undertakings, the balance of convenience did not favour the grant of an injunction. At the hearing Mr Cobill and Mr Mahmood each made clear that if, however, the court was against them on that issue then whilst they would accept the proposed terms of the injunction (save in respect of the claim for springboard relief) they did not accept that the tests for the requirement for service of an Affidavit or for an imaging order were met. I address those issues below.

D2

D2 read a statement at the hearing. He said that he never worked for D1. He said that D8 was “a friend and former colleague”. He went on to say:

“I introduced him to contacts like a web developer, but I had no commercial involvement with him. A blog post once wrongly named me as working for Knightsbridge, but that was corrected before any legal action was taken. I also registered a transport company called AP Services Stoke in February 2025. It has not traded at all due to my poor mental health, but it was intended as a possible future option because I could no longer cope with going back to the claimant’s workplace. The registered address is the same as Knightsbridge only because we used the same accountant — it means nothing more than that.”

D2 said he “strongly” opposed “the request for forensic access to my personal phone. My phone contains highly sensitive data — including evidence that supports my grievance, legal documents, private health records, and financial information. Giving access to that would seriously undermine my legal position and breach my privacy. I cannot and will not agree to it.”

D6

D6 also read a written statement. At the outset he said that whilst “I acknowledge the claimants wish to litigate this matter to a group, however this had led their counsel to assign blame and make claims that are leading and imprecise at best and could be argued and proven to be inflammatory or completely false.” He says that the IT report indicates:

“There is no evidence of unusual activity pertaining to myself

I have not accessed Hattons of London systems outside of the office or incentive destinations from a date unknown to me but likely to be prior to the registration of The Knightsbridge Collection Ltd, as far as I recall the last time I accessed Hattons of London systems outside of the office was July 2024.

I have not accessed Hattons of London systems since my sickness commenced on 3^rd March 2025

Aside from the spurious link between my sickness period and the use of the third respondents login I am not mentioned in the statement at all.”

D6 said that the only device he possessed was his personal mobile which was turned off whilst at work and kept in a locker. The IT report had identified that no confidential information had been accessed from his mobile phone. He noted that the initial pre-action letter had not identified him. He objected to the imaging order which would be an unjustified intrusion into his privacy.