Glencairn IP Holdings Ltd & Anor v Product Specialities Inc (t/a Final Touch) & Anor
Decision date: 5 July 2019
Neutral citation: [2019] EWHC 1733 (IPEC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
Glencairn sued to restrain Virtuoso from acting for Final Touch on the ground that Virtuoso had confidential settlement/mediation information from a prior mediation with Dartington. The court found Virtuoso's Dartington team knew some confidential settlement terms and those terms were relevant, but held the risk of disclosure to the Final Touch team was very low given the firm's information barrier and factual circumstances. Balancing that low risk against the prejudice to Final Touch from losing its chosen solicitors, the court refused to grant an injunction; Glencairn's application was dismissed.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
Where solicitors have been exposed to confidential mediation information, the claimant bears the burden of showing a real and sensible possibility of misuse (a risk more than fanciful or theoretical) before a court will restrain the solicitors from acting for a later client; the effectiveness of an information barrier (Chinese wall) is a question of fact informed by the firm's size, structure and the factual proximity of teams, and need not satisfy a fixed checklist to be effective.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment suggested an intermediate category between former-client fiduciary cases and mere disclosure-of-documents cases, with the appropriate remedy and intensity of protection varying by class and facts. It also indicated that formal elements Lord Millett listed for Chinese walls are relevant but need not all be present in a small firm if the barrier is shown to work, and recorded that confidential material should not be considered by the court without giving the opposite party an opportunity to respond.