Summary judgment – Entitlement to summary judgment – Duty of servant Philip Coppel QC and Christopher Lingard (instructed by Follett Stock) for the claimant; George Hamer (instructed by Jirehouse Capital) for the defendants. Devon and Cornwall Autistic Community Trust (t/a Spectrum) v Pyrah and others: PCC (Mr Recorder Douglas Campbell): 24 September 2012 The claimant provided care and accommodation to people with autism in Cornwall. The first three defendants (the personal defendants) left the employ of the claimant on various dates in April to May 2009. The personal defendants then joined the fourth defendant company (the company), which competed directly with the claimant in terms of geographical area, service users and customers. The claimant brought an instant action alleging breach of confidence. The defendants submitted that the claimant’s pleaded case lacked particularity and the claimant admitted that it was unable to give further particulars of the personal defendants’ breaches until after disclosure. Further, there was a lack of documentation about some of the complaints made against the defendants. The defendants sought an order for summary judgment on the claim pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 24.2 or that the claim be struck out, pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(b), for failing to comply with orders made at previous hearings (the orders). The issues for determination were: (i) whether summary judgment ought to be granted; and (ii) whether the pleaded case lacked particularity such that it ought to be struck out. The application would be allowed. (1) It was settled law that, in respect of summary judgment applications, the court had to consider whether the claimant had a realistic as opposed to a fanciful prospect of success (see  of the judgment). On the facts, the instant case had no realistic prospect of success. Accordingly, summary judgment ought to be given for the defendants under CPR 24.2 (see ,  of the judgment). (2) It was settled law that the rules relating to the particularity of pleadings applied to breach of confidence actions as they applied to all other proceedings. But it was well recognised that breach of confidence actions could be used to oppress and harass competitors and ex-employees. The courts were therefore careful to ensure that the plaintiff gave full and proper particulars of all the confidential information on which he intended to rely in the proceedings. If the plaintiff failed to do that, the court might infer that the purpose of the litigation was harassment rather than the protection of the plaintiff’s rights and might strike out the action as an abuse of process (see  of the judgment). Applying settled law and on the facts, the instant case should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(b) as an abuse. It was far from clear what confidential information was actually being relied upon. The nature of the claim had changed from pleading to pleading. The failure to specify the basic component of the claim was fundamental. The court had come to the firm conclusion that all of the allegations relating to the misuse were no more than unsupported speculation. Further, the court inferred that the purpose of the litigation was harassment of competitors and ex-employees, rather than the protection of the claimant’s rights (see , , ,  of the judgment). The defendants’ application would be granted (see  of the judgment).
Rep. Olson (R – District 30): “I think being on the losing side of a major issue but ultimately being on the right side of it, as it played out, that being ACES and AGIA, I was in a minority that was under 21 votes which in the House is what you need to get the bill through, but I think it turned out. We’re still digging ourselves out of that. Being on the right side of Senate Bill 21 because that one has made us a lot more money in the down market that we’re in right now than we would have had if we had not gone that direction.” He says that legislation is meant to be a fail safe in case lawmakers do not come to an agreement on a plan for Alaska’s future in time to implement it for the next fiscal year. Rep. Olson(R-District 30): “I think I’m probably going to take my wife on a trip and I’m not worried about campaigning this year because I withdrew my letter of intent on April 1.” Olson says it freed him up to introduce a couple of bills recently without external influence, one of those being the bill to tax Alaskans’ Permanent Fund Dividends by 35 percent if no sustainable plan is implemented. FacebookTwitterEmailPrintFriendly分享Representative Kurt Olson of Soldotna has some big plans for the summer after the legislature completes their work… Rep. Olson (R – District 30): “The minute there is a long-term plan in that back fills the deficit that we have, this plan will self-destruct immediately.” Olson also introduced a bill to to change the way that legislators’ per diems are calculated during their regular and special sessions. The representative reflected on a couple of more memorable moments in the House… He says he has very much enjoyed the experience during the 12 years he’s held the District 30 seat in the House but he’s ready to spend more time with his family. He says he is not endorsing anyone in particular for the primary election but advises the next person representing District 30 to be consistent and not be afraid to say no.