SEP 06 97 14:40 HERBERT SMITH HK
20
show that damages were not an adequate remedy. I cannot start to accept this submission, First, in relation to breach of confidence it is not open to us. We are bound by the unanimous view to the contrary of all the English judges. Secondly, I agree with Lord Ackner's comment that
the truth of the Vice-Chancellor's observation "is so
crystal clear, that the proposition requires no further exposition" (17), The same applies equally to the cause of action in breach of fiduciary duty. Thirdly, I can see
Всё по
basis in fact or law for the submission that if the trial judge regarded the Defendants' conduct as sufficiently. heinous he could award punitive damages. Such a view of the Defendants' conduct should, in my view, lead to the grant of
Mr. Lester's stand was essentially
an injunction.
4
4 :
1.
contradictory. If the Plaintiff has an arguable case in either cause of action, it must be an arguable case for the law's only effective remedy namely en injunction.
In my judgment, therefore, the Plaintiff
1
+F
relation to his cause of action for breach of confidence is
in the same position in this case as he was before their
Lordships' House. He has an arguable claim for the only effective remedy the law recognises namely an injunction. In addition he is in the same position in respect of his claim for breach of fiduciary duty. Unfortunately, the trial judge was persuaded to the contrary conclusion. He rejected Mr. Ribeiro's submission to the above effect and
reached the conclusion that damages were an adequate remedy
to the Plaintiff but not to the Defendants. With respect, this view is insupportable. It follows that he did not start correctly to assess the true impact of the grant and "the refusal of an injunction, and the exercise of his
discretion is fatally flawed.
It follows in my judgment that the real issue before the judge and this Court is futility. The judge did not deal with this question, but had he done so his
propositions" (3) and (5) suggest to my mind that his
conclusion would not have been favourable to
favourable to the Defendants.
(17) Transcript p.23
F.4
Page 60Page 61
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.