City Site Solutions Limited v. Baker
[2023] EWHC 2064 (KB)
In the High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division
Case Number KB-2023-002982
Before Judge Nigel Cooper, KC
Decided on August 09, 2023

Relevancy of the case: Injunction against former employees to prevent them from using confidential information in their new company

Relevant Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The General Data Protection Regulation 2018

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The claimant has applied for injunctive relief and speedy disposal in the present case.
• The claimant is a company employing the first, second, and third defendants. The fourth defendant is a newly established entity.
• The claimant alleges that the first three defendants left the company as a team and started a new entity, the fourth defendant. They allegedly stole the claimant’s company’s information to start this new business.
• The claimant undertook an IT investigation on the first defendant’s computer device at the office. The investigation found that he transferred classified information related to the claimant’s entity to the fourth defendant. This is against the terms of employment.
• The claimant also alleged that they used the claimant entity’s information post-termination.

Prominent Arguments by the Counsels

• The claimant’s counsel argued that:
  • The court should grant injunctive relief and conduct a speedy trial. The defendants’ decision to leave was pre-planned, and they left the entity as a team.
  • The defendants used the claimant entity’s information to gain a competitive advantage. Additionally, the counsel submitted that the defendants owed post-termination restraints (PTRs) to the entity, and they demanded express PTRs.
  • The claimant also sought an affidavit from the first and fourth defendants regarding the information they have about the claimant’s entity.
• The defendant’s counsel submitted that:
  • The information acquired by the claimant was acquired through illegal means, i.e., hacking of the first defendant’s email ID. They also contended that the PTRs were very wide in ambit.
  • Additionally, they argued against the interim injunction, as the claimant intends to receive a mandatory injunction due to the subsistence of PTRs. Granting a mandatory injunction would amount to grave injustice.
  • A contract did not exist to begin with because the parties disagreed regarding the bonus grant.

Opinion of the Bench

• This is a case for an interim injunction, as the court already granted an order for a speedy trial. The judge refused to analyse the legality of the evidence at this point in the trial.
• The court acknowledged the existence of the first defendant’s employment with the claimant. He owed a duty to the entity even after terminating their contracts.
• Damages will not be a sufficient remedy if the claimant is proven correct in the final trial. The court analysed the balance of convenience of the parties and chose a course that was least likely to do injustice.

Final Decision

• The court granted injunctive relief to the claimant.

Nandita Karan Yadav, an undergraduate student at the National Law Institute University, Bhopal, prepared this case summary during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in May/June 2024