- Prohibitory and mandatory injunctions—access, delivery-up and imaging orders (C.T. Dent Ltd v Atias)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: In an application brought by C.T. Dent Ltd against its former CEO Mr Atias, four heads of injunctive relief were sought. First, an access order, to various electronic databases/systems that Mr Atias had declined to provide. Second, a delivery-up order, covering the company property and documents that Mr Atias had retained. Third, interim restraints, to prevent access to or use of these materials and for non-solicitation. Finally, an imaging order, of devices and online services previously used by Mr Atias. While not a ground-breaking decision, the judgment stands as a digestible summary of the key principles in this area and a reminder of the value of detailed evidence, especially on the balance of injustice. James Mellor QC (sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court) had little difficulty accepting C.T. Dent’s evidence, applying the various tests and ordering all four heads of relief. Practitioners will also be interested to note that, helpfully, the deputy judge annexed a full copy of his detailed order to the judgment. Written by Christopher Burt, senior associate solicitor, at Moon Beever Solicitors.
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