Barclays Bank PLC v Scott Dylan & Ors
[2024] EWHC 881 (Ch)
Stonegate Farmers Limited & Ors v Michael Richard John Kent & Ors
12 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 3051 (Ch)
High Court
Companies were fighting over secret business info during a lawsuit. The judge decided everyone involved should see the secret documents but be extra careful not to share them, and everyone had to pay some of their own legal fees for making things unnecessarily complicated.
Key Facts
- •Stonegate Farmers Limited and others sued Michael Richard John Kent and others for breaches allegedly resulting in loss of profitable arrangements and assets.
- •Disclosure Issue 31 concerned the Claimants' financial performance since divestment, including profitability and market share.
- •Claimants sought compensation for lost profits due to alleged dishonest actions by Defendants.
- •The Claimants argued that the normal CPR undertaking was insufficient to protect the highly confidential nature of their financial data.
- •Negotiations led to a draft order agreed by some, but not all, parties.
- •The dispute focused on whether additional confidentiality protections beyond CPR 31.22 should be imposed, particularly for individual defendants.
- •The Court considered the risk of individual defendants passing confidential information to Noble Foods Group Limited (D3), a key competitor.
- •The Court balanced the need for confidentiality against the integrity of the disclosure process and open justice.
- •The Court addressed the costs incurred by all parties in the dispute over confidentiality protections.
Legal Principles
Departure from the CPR default disclosure regime needs justification.
CPR 31.22
The court must balance the importance of confidentiality against the integrity of the disclosure process and open justice.
Case Law (implied)
Outcomes
The court established a confidentiality ring including all defendants, not just D3.
The court found that the risk of individual defendants illicitly sharing confidential information with D3 was sufficiently low given the lawyer-supervised disclosure process and the lack of direct benefit for most individual defendants.
Claimants (C) did not recover their costs.
While the court acknowledged the claimants' reasons for the application, it also found fault in the late application and approach.
Defendant 3 (D3) recovered costs capped at £100,000.
D3's concession regarding confidentiality was key to resolving the dispute, but the court also noted some fault and intransigence on their part.
Individual defendants (except D6) had their costs assessed on a detailed assessment with a payment on account limited to £25,000 each.
Their actions were contingent on D3 and C's agreement, and the court found their actions reasonable given the circumstances.
Defendant 6 (D6) received 100% of their costs (£17,000).
Summary assessment deemed appropriate due to the relatively low amount.
Similar Cases
Sportcal Global Communications Limited & Anor v Michael John Laflin
[2023] EWHC 656 (KB)
SFL Ace 2 Company Inc. v DCW Management Limited & Ors
[2024] EWHC 3074 (Comm)
Scenic International Group Limited (In Provisional Liquidation) v Richard Adenaike & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1178 (Ch)
Camberley Group Plc & Ors v Paul Foster & Ors
[2023] EWHC 248 (KB)