High Court Stresses Balancing Open Justice and Confidentiality in IBM v Lzlabs Case

Citation: [2024] EWHC 423 (TCC)
Judgment on


The High Court of Justice’s Technology and Construction Court recently adjudicated the case of IBM United Kingdom Limited v Lzlabs GmbH & Ors ([2024] EWHC 423 (TCC)). Central to this case was the management of confidential documents in preparation for a trial concerning alleged misuse of proprietary software. This article analyses the judgment, highlighting the key topics discussed and the legal principles the court applied.

Key Facts

IBM United Kingdom Limited initiated proceedings against Lzlabs GmbH and other defendants based on allegations that Lzlabs had breached their contractual agreements by using IBM’s mainframe software to develop their Software Defined Mainframe (SDM) through prohibited methods such as reverse assembling, compiling, or engineering. The defendants countered the claims with defenses including development through their own research and, crucially, sought to invoke contractual and statutory limitations. The disputed case delves deep into software source code, customer confidentiality, and associated metadata, all of which called for a rigorous approach to confidentiality during trial preparation. The pivotal matter became the designation and handling of confidential documents, leading to the claimant’s application seeking judicial directions on this issue.

A suite of legal principles guides the court’s stance on transparency and confidentiality:

  1. Open Justice: Stemming from Prime Authorities like Attorney General v Leveller Magazine Ltd and Al Rawi & Others v The Security Service & Others, the principle holds that legal procedures should generally be public to foster accountability and confidence in the justice system.

  2. Confidentiality Derogation: As iterated in R (Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, the principle of open justice is not absolute and can yield to the protection of confidentiality if public exposure would nullify information’s value or cause harm.

  3. Disclosure and Privacy: Following the guidance from Riddick v Thames Board Mills Limited, disclosure of confidential documents imposes a privacy concern. The court must balance the party’s right to information against the duty to safeguard confidentiality.

  4. Confidential Information Definition: The court aligns with the definitions traced in Article 2 of the Trade Secrets Directive and regulation 2 of the Trade Secrets (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2018, which describe trade secrets as undisclosed information with commercial value, known only within certain circles, and subject to active measures to keep it concealed.

  5. Court’s Supervisory Role: The court acknowledged that its influence on document designation was not absolute, as seen in Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co, Ltd v Mitsubishi Electric Corp, and JC Bamford Excavators Limited v Manitou UK Limited, stressing the context-specific and relative nature of the term ‘confidentiality.‘


The court provided a methodological approach to analyze the disputed confidentiality claims:

  • Review: The parties were directed to review the disclosed documents with a focus on the trial’s core bundle, ensuring high sensitivity confidential information remains protected.

  • Explanation Requirement: Parties asserting confidentiality must elucidate their rationale, while opponents of such assertions must provide reasons for their challenges.

  • Resolution Prioritization: The court encouraged parties to settle their confidentiality disputes but allowed for unresolved matters to be presented at a Pre-Trial Review (PTR).

  • Context Emphasis: Claims over confidentiality were to be assessed with a heavy emphasis on context, with strict guidelines against generalizing confidentiality assertions. This was particularly noted concerning the ‘five-year rule of thumb’ regarding document age and confidentiality decay.


In IBM United Kingdom Limited v Lzlabs GmbH & Ors, the High Court has iterated the importance of balancing open justice with the legitimate need for confidentiality in complex commercial litigation. The judgment emphasized context-specific analysis and judicial oversight while maintaining the core legal avenue for both transparency and protection of sensitive information. The court’s structured approach offers legal professionals a framework for managing confidentiality in trial preparation, respecting confidentiality without compromising the principle of open justice.

Related Summaries