- Continuation of quia timet injunction refused (Rafael v Mectron)
- Original news
- What are the practical implications of this decision?
- What was the background to the application?
- What was the Commercial Court's decision?
- Self-induced 'urgency' under s 44, AA 1996
- Compliance with undertakings given when seeking ex parte relief
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: Teare J in the Commercial Court has refused to maintain a quia timet injunction restraining the defendant from divulging the claimant’s confidential intellectual property (IP) until final arbitral award. The judge did not accept that without the injunction there was a real risk that the defendant intended to transfer the claimant’s IP to third parties. Taking into account evidence of events including those leading up to the granting of the application, the court accepted that there was no reason to doubt the good faith and honesty of the defendant in saying that it respected its confidentiality and non-disclosure obligations. The decision will be of interest to arbitration practitioners in the comments made obiter on whether the ‘urgency’ as required by s 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) had in fact been self induced.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial