Terex GB Limited and Andrew Mulholland and M&K Quarry Plant Limited T/A M&K Group
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Master Bell |
| Judgment Date | 23 August 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] NIMaster 3 |
| Date | 23 August 2022 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation : [2022] NIMaster 3
Ref:
NIMaster3
3
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
Delivered:
23/8/22
(subject to editorial corrections)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND
------
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
------
BETWEEN:
Terex GB Limited
Plaintiff;
and
Andrew Mulholland
First defendant.
and
M&K Quarry Plant Limited T/A M&K Group
Second defendant
------
Master Bell
[1] This is an application by the plaintiff for two reliefs against the second
defendant. The first relief, and indeed the principal matter before me, is an
application for inspection facilities under Order 29 rule 2 of the Rules of the Court of
Judicature. However this is no simple application for inspection of premises where
2
an accident occurred. It is an application to allow the plaintiff to enter its premises
and to take a forensic image of the second defendant’s entire computer server. The
second relief sought is an order that the second defendant be restricted from
inspecting or obtaining copies of the plaintiff’s documents set out in schedule 1 to
the Statement of Claim until the second defendant has executed a confidentiality
undertaking. A third relief had originally also been sought, namely an order for a list
of documents to be filed by the second defendant. However, by the time the
summons came to be heard, the list had been served.
[2] In this application the plaintiff was represented by Mr Hopkins and the
second defendant by Mr Gibson. I am grateful to them for the high quality of their
oral and written submissions and am also grateful to the plaintiff’s instructing
solicitor, Mr Guzhar, for the comprehensive and well-organised trial bundles.
THE FACTUAL CONTEXT
Introduction
[3] The plaintiff (hereafter “Terex”) is a subsidiary of the Terex Corporation
which is a global manufacturer of equipment in various industries, including the
construction, infrastructure, manufacturing, shipping, transportation, refining,
quarrying and mining industries. Terex has special responsibility within the
Corporation for the design and manufacture of large- scale quarry plant and
equipment such as crushers and screeners.
[4] Around 2010 Terex designed a screening machine now known as the 1400X. It
went into production in October 2011 and onto the market in November 2012. The
plaintiff’s design documents for the 1400X are said to constitute sensitive and
confidential design information. They were kept by Terex for use by some of its
employees within Terex’s designated design vault server. This allowed employees,
including design engineers , manufacturing engineers and quality engineers, to have
access to the vault in order to create, share and change their design work.
[5] The first defendant (hereafter “Mr Mulholland”) was an employee of Terex from
August 2012 until his dismissal for gross misconduct in December 2014. His
employment contract contained clauses whereby he agreed not to make any use of
trade secrets or confidential information concerning the business of Terex; to deal
with, protect and preserve Terex’s property entrusted to him in an honest, true and
faithful manner; and not to remove any Terex property or materials without the
express permission of his manager. Mr Mulholland was employed by Terex as a
design engineer and his duties included, inter alia, working on maintenance aspects
of the machines and carrying out design changes arising from requests from the
shop floor and/or customer feedback. Occasionally he took a front role in
development of product features that were related to general product updates and
renewals. However, he was not involved in the original design of any machines for
To continue reading
Request your trial