Armstrong Watson LLP v Persons Unknown responsible for obtaining data from the Claimant's IT systems on or about 28 February to 6 March 2023 and/or who have disclosed or is intending or threatening to disclose the information thereby obtained
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Linden |
| Judgment Date | 24 April 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 921 (KB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: KB-2023-001440 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
[2023] EWHC 921 (KB)
Mr Justice Linden
Case No: KB-2023-001440
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Adam Speker KC (instructed by DAC Beachcroft LLP) for the Claimants
No appearance or participation by the Defendants
Hearing date: 21 April 2023
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10am on 24 April 2023 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
This was the return date for an order for an injunction which was ordered on 28 March 2023 by Mr Justice Ritchie at a private hearing without notice. He set out his reasons for making the Order in a clear and comprehensive judgment dated 31 March 2023 which has the neutral citation number [2023] EWHC 762 (KB).
Mr Adam Speker KC represented the Claimant and submitted a skeleton argument, dated 19 April 2023, in support of the Claimant's application notice dated 18 April 2023. That application was also supported by a confidential witness statement, dated 18 April 2023.
The Defendants were served with Ritchie J's Order, the Claim Form, the application notice and response pack on 29 March 2023 in accordance with the terms of that Order. They have therefore been aware of the return date for some time. I understand that they were served with the application notice for today's application on 19 April 2023. They have not complied with Ritchie J's Order, nor engaged with the proceedings in any other way.
The terms of the Order which I have been invited to make are self-explanatory but, in summary, they continue the injunctions and certain other orders made by Ritchie J until trial or further order, and directions are made for the future conduct of these proceedings which should bring them to a conclusion in the near future.
Mr Speker invited me to proceed in the Defendants' absence and to consider the Claimant's application on paper rather than hold a hearing.
i) In relation to the application for the matter to be dealt with on paper, I referred to CPR rule 23.8(c), (the Practice Guidance: Interim Non-Disclosure Orders [2012] 1 WLR 1003 at...
To continue reading
Request your trial