A mosquito net
manufacturer took a competitor firm founded by ex-employees to
court, claiming that that company's net was the result of an abuse
of confidential information.
The newer company, Bestnet, applied to have the original action
by older firm Vestergaard struck out for being vexatious and an
abuse of process.
Bestnet claimed that Vestergaard had not made its claims in
enough detail or backed them up with evidence. It said its rival
had not showed exactly what information Bestnet was meant to have
used, and how.
Confidentiality is protected by law if it can be shown that
information is truly confidential and if it is imparted to the
other party in a way that creates an obligation of confidence.
Vestergaard claimed that Bestnet founder Torben Holm Larsen, a
former head of production for Vestergaard, had copied 56,000
computer files in the months before giving his notice. Larsen's
evidence said that this was simply a backup for his laptop.
The case is one of a number; there are also suits in France,
India and Denmark.
For its request to have the case struck out, Bestnet had a
report produced by an expert which said that the information used
by Bestnet in the production of its mosquito net was available
publicly and from the industry generally.
On that basis it asked the High Court to throw the case out of
court without a full trial. The judge, Roger Wyand QC sitting as a
deputy High Court judge, did not, saying that the expert's report
was not sufficient evidence for striking out Vestergaard's
claim.
"It may well be that, at trial, [Bestnet's expert] Professor
Stevens' Report will be held to be decisive," said Wyand. "I am
merely attempting to show examples as to why I cannot possibly
decide at this stage of the proceedings and without a proper
examination of the facts, that the Claimants' case is without
merits."
Bestnet said that Vestergaard had not detailed its case
properly, and Wyand agreed that this had been true, but said that
the case had now been properly stated. "I do not think that a
failure to particularise properly at an earlier stage can justify
striking out a claim if it is properly particularised before the
striking out application is heard," he said.
Wyand said that he was making no judgment on which party should
win the case as a whole, but that he had not been persuaded that
the case was without merit. He ordered a full trial.
"In all the circumstances I am not prepared to strike out this
action for being vexatious and an abuse of process. I am not
expressing any view as to the merits of the case. That would be
wrong. I am only ruling that the Defendants have not overcome the
burden of establishing that the action should be struck out," he
said.
