The High Court continued an interim injunction preventing MXSweep Limited from making or pursuing certain allegations against Danny Jenkins, pending trial of his action over a settlement of earlier proceedings. The order covers allegations of software theft, improper conduct or illegal copying connected with those proceedings, including Jenkins’s involvement or connection with TTAsia Limited. It does not prevent complaints against V-Clouds Limited solely because of alleged software misappropriation.
The dispute followed a January 2010 settlement of Jenkins’s employment action and separate Companies Act proceedings. The settlement provided for payment to Jenkins, transfer of his shareholding in MXSweep and full and final settlement of the claims between the parties made in or arising from those proceedings, including MXSweep’s counterclaim. It also required confidentiality, subject to disclosure required by law.
Jenkins alleged that MXSweep breached the settlement by making a complaint to the Federation Against Software Theft (FAST), sending a letter to TTAsia and informing a prospective technology partner that it would not consider a partnership while the FAST investigation was underway. The FAST letter, addressed to Jenkins at his home, alleged that Enable Software Limited had used MXSweep source code. MXSweep denied making allegations against Jenkins personally and said it understood FAST had stopped its investigation. The court noted that there was no confirmation in evidence that the complaint had been withdrawn. It did not rely on disputed hearsay allegations made by MXSweep about Jenkins and V-Clouds.
At this interlocutory stage, the judge was deciding whether there was a fair issue to be tried, whether damages would be an adequate remedy and where the balance of convenience lay. She found a fair issue over whether the settlement barred MXSweep from pursuing matters raised in the earlier proceedings, including through complaints directed at Enable or others. She said the complaint to FAST appeared directed at Jenkins through Enable and concerned those same matters. Reputational harm to Jenkins could not adequately be measured in damages, and the balance of convenience favoured an injunction.
The judge was not satisfied that Jenkins had shown a fair issue that a complaint about V-Clouds would be barred by the settlement. She therefore limited the injunction to allegations against Jenkins, directly or indirectly through Enable or otherwise, concerning matters arising from, considered in or related to the earlier cases. The restraint remains in force until trial, and Jenkins’s undertaking as to damages was noted. The court made no final finding that MXSweep breached the settlement; that issue remains for trial.