Background
Espire Infolabs Limited employed Amit Mohan Sharma as a project manager and seconded him to a private members’ club, where he had access to members’ personal data. After Espire told him that the secondment would end, Sharma said he had copied data concerning approximately 55,000 members and would reveal it unless he received £150,000. The parties entered into a settlement agreement on 4 July 2025 under which Espire agreed to make a £50,000 termination payment and Sharma agreed, among other things, to delete and return confidential information, refrain from using or disclosing it, avoid derogatory or media statements, and not contact Espire’s employees, customers, or clients.
After disputing a tax deduction from the payment, Sharma sent emails to the club, its members, media organisations, and others. The communications included threats to release confidential information, demands for further payments, and screenshots and address information relating to club members. Following his arrest and a quieter period, further communications referred to Espire’s clients, competitors, financial forecasts, and confidential client list. Espire obtained interim injunctions in November 2025 and applied for summary judgment, repayment of the termination payment, continuing injunctive relief, and permission to seek damages.
The Court’s Holding
HHJ Jarman KC granted Espire summary judgment. Sharma did not dispute entering the settlement agreement or sending the principal emails and texts relied upon. Those communications established clear breaches of his obligations to delete and refrain from using confidential information, avoid prohibited statements, and not contact Espire’s customers or clients. The agreement expressly addressed the tax treatment of the termination payment, and neither the circumstances preceding the settlement nor the asserted tax dispute relieved Sharma of his contractual obligations.
The court held that the defence and counterclaim had no real prospect of success and that there was no compelling reason for a trial. Claims based on conduct before the settlement were doomed because the agreement resolved the parties’ employment-related disputes, while allegations of later harassment and abuse of process lacked evidential support. Espire was entitled to repayment of the £50,000 termination payment and continuing injunctive relief. Rather than impose a permanent injunction, the court selected a proportionate four-year “cooling off” period, with liberty for Sharma to apply for discharge, an exception permitting employment-related contact, and a narrowed affidavit requirement concerning how he retained the relevant data.
Key Takeaways
- Documented threats and disclosures involving confidential customer data can justify summary judgment for breach of a settlement agreement.
- General allegations about pre-settlement employment conduct, harassment, or litigation abuse will not defeat summary judgment without a viable legal and evidential basis.
- Even where contractual confidentiality obligations are permanent, the court may tailor injunctive relief by imposing a fixed period, a discharge mechanism, and practical exceptions.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the enforceability of detailed post-employment settlement terms governing confidential information, customer contact, and public statements. It also shows the evidential force of a consistent record of emails and messages where the sender largely accepts the communications and their contents demonstrate repeated contractual breaches.
The judgment further underscores that injunctions must remain proportionate to the demonstrated risk. Although Espire established serious and repeated misuse and threats of misuse, the court preferred a four-year protective period over permanent relief and adjusted the order to avoid unnecessarily obstructing Sharma’s search for employment.