Hytrac Conveyors Ltd v Conveyors International Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE LAWTON,LORD JUSTICE TEMPLEMAN,LORD JUSTICE FOX |
| Judgment Date | 26 July 1982 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1982] EWCA Civ J0726-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | 82/0340 |
| Date | 26 July 1982 |
[1982] EWCA Civ J0726-1
Lord Justice Lawton,
Lord Justice Templeman
and
Lord Justice Fox
82/0340
1982 H. No. 2455
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (Civil Division)
(Ex parte application for leave to appeal from Mr. Justice Whitford)
Royal Courts of Justice
Mr. A. WILSON (instructed by Messrs. Rooks Rider & Co., Agents for Messrs. Stone & Simpson, Leicester) appeared on behalf of the Applicants(Plaintiffs).
Mr. J. FITZGERALD (instructed by Messrs. Robbins Olivey & Lake, Agents for Messrs. Ironsides, Leicester) appeared on behalf of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants.
Mr. W.B. SPALDING (instructed by Messrs. Wrigley Claydon & Armstrongs, Oldham) appeared on behalf of the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants.
Mr. N. BRAGGE (instructed by Messrs. Harvey, Ingram, Leicester) appeared on behalf of the 8th, 9th and 10th Defendants with a watching brief. The 11th Defendant did not appear and was not represented.
)
This is an application made ex parte but with notice to the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh defendants, on behalf of Hytrac Conveyors Limited as plaintiffs, for leave to appeal against an order made by Mr. Justice Whitford on 22nd July 1982, whereby he struck out the plaintiffs' statement of claim against those defendants and ordered them to pay the costs on a common fund basis and also ordered an inquiry as to damages on the plaintiffs' undertakings.
This application raises a point of principle on which it is desirable to make some comments. The plaintiffs allege that the first defendants, who are a limited liability company, and various of their shareholders, have infringed the plaintiffs' industrial copyright. The personal defendants have all been, or still are, employees of the plaintiffs and it is alleged that they have acted in breach of either an express or an implied covenant to act faithfully in the course of their employments. It may well be that there is a solid foundation for those allegations. That will be decided in any trial which may take place hereafter. It is the course of events in this case which has caused this court some concern.
It has become a common practice nowadays when men leave an employment and set up as business rivals to their old employers for those employers to allege that they have acted in breach of an implied covenant of confidentiality and that they have either infringed their former employers' industrial copyright or that they have taken away lists of customers. When that belief is held the employers often apply to a judge for an Anton Piller order.
In this case the plaintiffs applied for an Anton Piller order on 29th April 1982 and it was granted. On 30th April 1982 they issued their writ against the eleven defendants and executed the order. On 6th May 1982 a group of the defendants, but not all, applied to discharge the Anton Piller order. In part they were successful and a number of documents were returned to them; some were retained by the plaintiffs. On 11th May a number of the defendants gave notice of intention to defend. As soon as that notice was given, Order 18, rule 1, came into operation and it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- The Board of Trustees of The Athi Eeswaran Temple v P Santhirasegaram
- Peh Im Kweng; Te Cheng Hoi
-
Chiarapurk Jack and Others v Haw Par Brothers International Ltd and another and another appeal
... ... In Hytrac Conveyors Ltd v Conveyors International Ltd & Ors, the plaintiffs` writ sought injunctions ... ...
-
Irish Family Planning Association v Youth Defence
...of the court the plaintiff should be dilatory in serving the statement of claim. In Hytrac Conveyors v. ConveyorsInternational [1982] 3 All E.R. 415 at p. 417 Lawton L.J.held "In this case, as a result of the attempt to get an interlocutory injunction before the delivery of the statement of......
-
Employee Competition: Recent Cases
...accusatorial way merely "in order to see what sort of charges they can make": Hytrac Conveyors Ltd v Conveyors International Ltd [1983] 1 WLR 44 at 47H; Black v Sumitomo Corporation [2002] 1 WLR 1562 per Rix LJ at In Intelsec Systems v Grech-Cini [2000] 1 WLR 1190, a limited interim disclos......