Information Law analysis: An application by the Defendants for strike out and/or summary judgment, the case before the court is an offshoot of the well-known ‘Dieselgate’ emissions litigation. Though little concerned with the merits of the Dieselgate cases, the issue in this case arose out of the agreements entered into between the lawyers behind the Group Litigation Order (the Claimant), a broker of litigation funding (the First Defendant) and a litigation funder (the Second Defendant). A non-disclosure agreement (NDA) signed between the Claimant and First Defendant at the outset of their contractual dealings acted to prevent the First Defendant from disclosing any information as to the Claimant’s claim, including the identities of its clients, to a third party other than with the Claimant’s consent. The Claimant’s case centres on the allegation that the First Defendant, by disclosing confidential information pertaining to litigation funding advice to the Second Defendant is in breach of contract. A claim against the Second Defendant rests on its disclosure of this information to Harcus Sinclair LLP and its decision to fund their claims rather than those of the Claimant. Further pleaded is an unlawful means conspiracy against both Defendants, as well as an account of profits and restitution. The loss is said to arise from the Defendants having, to borrow the proprietary language sometimes used in breach of confidence cases, misappropriated the Claimant’s detailed information on the viability of funding Dieselgate claims. Not enjoying privity of contract, the Claimant’s only possible recourse against the Second Defendant would, naturally, be in tortious and restitutionary remedies. Written by Josh Radcliffe, barrister at New Walk Chambers, Leicester.