The High Court has ordered three former CubicM3 managers and their new company to pay the company’s costs of an interim application and a later interlocutory motion. Mr Justice Allen delivered the judgment on 2 March 2021 after hearing the motion on 14 January.
The dispute concerned allegations that former employees copied and used confidential business information to benefit Resolute Engineering Group Limited, which the judgment identifies as the seventh defendant. In affidavits filed in response, the first three defendants admitted copying a list of business leads and prospects while employed by CubicM3, taking it with them and using it for Resolute’s benefit. The judgment also records admissions concerning copied customer lists and project folders, files uploaded to Resolute’s OneDrive, and efforts to divert business. The court described the conduct as unlawful.
The defendants submitted to all but one of the reliefs sought, but opposed the plaintiff’s claim for costs. They argued that the plaintiff had failed to make full and frank disclosure when it obtained interim orders without notice, and that evidence relied on was hearsay. Justice Allen rejected those objections. He found no material basis for the alleged disclosure failures and held that the limited hearsay in the managing director’s affidavit did not justify refusing the plaintiff its costs.
The court refused the contested request to let an independent IT consultant search the data imaged from defendants’ devices. Imaging had preserved the data, but the judge said a search would expose personal and potentially irrelevant information. The plaintiff had not shown that a search was necessary at this stage; discovery could address relevant documents later.
The judge also refused the plaintiff’s request for an immediate payment on account of costs, saying the evidence did not allow a fair assessment of the amount sought. He rejected the defendants’ request to stay execution of the costs order pending the action.
The first, second, third and seventh defendants must pay the plaintiff’s costs of the interim application made on 5 November 2020 and the interlocutory motion. The plaintiff’s costs against the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants were reserved to the trial judge. The court refused the search order and payment on account. It listed the case for a remote mention two weeks later.