Force India Formula 1 Team Ltd v 1 Malaysia Racing Team SDN BHD and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Lewison |
| Judgment Date | 14 November 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWCA Civ 1599 |
| Docket Number | Case No: A3/2012/1282 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 14 November 2012 |
[2012] EWCA Civ 1599
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE ARNOLD)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Lewison
Case No: A3/2012/1282
Mr James Mellor QC (instructed by Fladgate LLP) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.
(As Approved)
This is a renewed application for permission to appeal against a very long judgment of Arnold J dealing in effect with complaints that the defendants have stolen the claimants' confidential information.
Permission to appeal was granted on Grounds 1 to 5 in the grounds of appeal. The remaining grounds of appeal as originally presented in the skeleton argument appeared simply to be disagreements with the judge's findings of fact.
In response to the refusal by Mummery LJ of permission to appeal on the remaining grounds on the papers, draft amended grounds of appeal had been prepared and they are, if I may say so, much more focused than the original skeleton argument. Mr Mellor QC appearing for the claimant/appellant has identified points of principle which had real prospects of success. Fortunately, the draft grounds of appeal nevertheless are a mixture of points of principle and rather more detailed points on the judge's findings of fact. As Mr Mellor recognises, it is not the function of this court to retry cases on the facts, but it does seem to me that if and to the extent that he succeeds on the points of principle then the more detailed complaints about the judge's findings of fact may, and I stress the word may, need to be reopened.
As I indicated to Mr Mellor when he opened his application, I am prepared to grant permission to appeal on the points of principle, while adjourning the remaining grounds of appeal to the full appeal so that if and to the extent that he succeeds on his points of principle then those more detailed grounds may be examined by the full court. If on the other hand he fails on his points of principle then those grounds will not need to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flogas Britain Ltd v Calor Gas Ltd
...I turn to the guidance in the cases about quantum for breach of confidence claims in particular. As Arnold J said in Force India Formula One Team v 1 Malaysia Racing Team [2012] EWHC 616, Ch at [374] "It is very difficult to find a clear, accurate and comprehensive statement of the principl......
-
Innovia Films Ltd v Frito-Lay North America, Inc.
... ... I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this ... State of the rules of jurisdiction there in force, and in particular those specified in Annex I, in ... companies of which one owned the beach and others had licences in connection with its use. The ... the information is confidential: see Force India Formula One Team Ltd v 1 Malaysia Racing Team Sdn ... ...
-
Alexis Maitland Hudson v Solicitors Regulation Authority
...of trust. 49 Reference was also made in the course of argument to the decision at first instance of Arnold J in Force India Formula One Team Limited v Malaysia Racing Team [2012] RPC 29 The judge concluded after a lengthy review of the authorities [393] to [424] that the same approach is to......
-
Kerry Ingredients (UK) Ltd v Bakkavor Group Ltd and Others
...the view that the information in question was not confidential. 66 A passage from the judgment of Arnold J in Force India Formula One Team Ltd v 1 Malaysia Racing Team Sdn Bhd [2012] EWHC 616 (Ch), [2012] RPC 29 is relevant here. Arnold J said (in paragraph 222): "In cases concerning desig......