Vestergaard Frandsen A/S and Others v Bestnet Europe Ltd and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Jacob,Lord Justice Carnwath |
| Judgment Date | 08 February 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWCA Civ 278 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: A3/2009/1646(B) and (Y) |
| Date | 08 February 2010 |
[2010] EWCA Civ 278
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
(MR Justice Arnold)
Before: Lord Justice Carnwath
and
Lord Justice Jacob
Case No: A3/2009/1646(B) and (Y)
Mr Martin Howe and Mr George Hamer (instructed by McGuirewoods London LLP) appeared on behalf of the Appellants.
Mr Mark Platts-Mills QC, Mr Tom Moody-Stuart and Mr James Whyte (instructed by Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP) appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
(As Approved)
Lord Justice Jacob:
This is an adjourned application for permission to appeal parts of the judgment of Arnold J and his supplementary judgment, which I will consider effectively as one judgment. Some parts the learned judge has already given permission to appeal for, and it is agreed there will be a day hearing that aspect of that matter. The matters now sought to be the subject of an appeal relate in effect to his central finding that there was a misuse of confidential information. The judge made very, very severe findings about the witnesses called by the defendants. Not only did he disbelieve them, but he held that in that in certain respects one of them at least had forged documents. Any appeal would have to be considered against that background.
Mr Martin Howe QC has advanced the case for saying there is a realistic prospect of success in a shortened skeleton argument which is nonetheless over 20 pages long. Before us he developed the argument and it runs something like this. Although the judge found, and he does not now challenge, the fact that the defendants started with what he called “a recipe” but which in the course of argument was agreed to be really a list of ingredients, and he cannot challenge that as having been the (inaudible) in misuse of confidential information, the nature of what was done with it did not really count as being a useful use because the listed ingredients is only the starting point, and how you cook it and what plastics you mix it with make a big difference, and you would know that; and that the judge has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Higher Education Funding Council v Information Commissioner
-
(1) British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc (2) British Sky Broadcasting Group Ltd and Others v (1) Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Limted ((in Liquidation)) (2) Nationwide Digital Satellite Warranty Services Ltd ((in Liquidation)) and Others
...53 Counsel for the Personal Defendants relied in support of his submission upon the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Vestergaard Frandsen S/A v Bestnet Europe Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 424. In my judgment that decision is not in 54 At first instance, I held that one of the defendants, Mrs Sig,......
-
Forensic Telecommunications Services Ltd v (1) The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (2) Stephen Hirst
...it must not be something which is public property and public knowledge". Confidentiality is a relative concept: see Vestergaard Frandsen A/S v Bestnet Europe Ltd [2009] EWHC 1456 (Ch), [2010] FSR 2 at [77] and the authorities cited 132 In my judgment the PM Abs List did have the necessary......
-
Tullett Prebon Plc and Others v BGC Brokers LP and Others
...unfair advantage continues. Many of the authorities were reviewed by Arnold J. in paragraphs 42 to 93 of his judgment in Vestergaard Frandsen A/S v Bestnet Europe Ltd [2009] EWHC 1456 (Ch) 249 There is a division of authority as to whether the principle can be applied other than where the c......