Mr Peter Knox KC and Ms Alexandra Sidossis of Counsel (instructed by Gunnercooke LLP) for the Claimants
Introduction
This is the hearing of the Claimants’ interim application notice, dated 16 October 2024, for injunctive relief[1].
Mr Knox of King’s Counsel and Ms Sidossis of Counsel appear on behalf of the Claimants. I am grateful for their skeleton argument, dated 29 October 2024, chronology and dramatis personae. Mr Sethi of King’s Counsel appears on behalf of the Defendants. I am grateful for his up-dated skeleton argument, dated 29 October 2024.
There is before the Court a bundle of documents of 989 pages. In addition to the bundle there are third and fourth witness statements of Mr Craig Stephen Ribton, both dated 29 October 2024, a second witness statement of the Second Defendant, dated 29 October 2024, and a rebuttal statement of the Third Defendant, dated 29 October 2024.
Both parties have provided authorities bundles, and Mr Sethi has also provided a copy of Prophet v Huggett [2014] EWCA Civ 1013.
Mr Knox and Mr Sethi refer to the parties as Claimants and Defendants, and not Applicants and Respondents, and I will do likewise in this judgment.
Witness statements
The Claimants rely upon the following evidence:
i) First witness statement of Mr Craig Stephen Ribton, Director of both Claimants, dated 3 October 2024[2], and Exhibit CR1[3];
ii) Second witness statement of Mr Craig Stephen Ribton, dated 23 October 2024[4], and Exhibit CR2[5];
iii) Third witness statement of Mr Craig Stephen Ribton, 29 October 2024, and Exhibit CR3[6];
iv) Fourth witness statement of Mr Craig Stephen Ribton and 29 October 2024, and Exhibit CR4[7];
v) Expert report of Mr Rui Fernandes, dated 2 October 2024[8], and Exhibit RF1[9].
The Defendants have filed the following witness statements:
i) The rebuttal statement of the Second Defendant, dated 29 October 2024[10], and Exhibit PM1[11];
ii) The second witness statement of the Second Defendant, dated 30 October 2024[12];
iii) The rebuttal statement of the Third Defendant, dated 29 October 2024[13].
Chronology
The First Claimant is a Canadian corporation, and the Second Claimant’s parent company.
Mr Ribton says in his first witness statement at paragraph 9[14],
“Brighter IR is a wholly owned subsidiary of Group. I am a director and the Chair of Brighter IR and Mr Meadows was the Chief Executive Officer of Brighter IR until his departure. I am a director of Group as was Mr Meadows between 18 January 2018 and 15 October 2021. Brighter IR designs, builds, hosts and maintains effective investor-focused Investor Relations (IR) websites and microsites that operate on the full range of internet connected devices.”
The Second Defendant says in his rebuttal statement, dated 29 October 2024,[15]
“73. The Second Claimant services around 300 clients on the London Stock Exchange. This is roughly 1/5 of the addressable market of some 1700 listed companies.”
The Second Claimant is a provider of financial news and “investor coordination services”: it designs, builds, hosts and maintains investor-focused “Investor Relations” websites and microsites that operate on the full range of internet connected services. This involves creating dedicated online spaces on websites which its customers and retail investors can visit to gain information about the company, and providing software to enable its clients to publish market share prices and regulatory news automatically on their websites, without the need for regular manual input.
Continue reading this Judgment here.
Share:
