Background
Applying for an injunction requires not only caution but also a deep understanding of the responsibilities involved. The case of Sinclair Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Burrell ([2025] EWHC 1602 (KB)) highlights the vital roles of co-operation, transparency, and fairness in such situations.
Sinclair Pharmaceuticals, a company specialising in medical aesthetics, became embroiled in a legal dispute with its Chief Legal Officer, Ms. Burrell, following her redundancy. Ms. Burrell claimed that her redundancy was not genuine, but was instead a retaliatory move linked to whistleblowing she had undertaken. The situation escalated when her husband received an anonymous delivery containing confidential documents belonging to Sinclair. While he began reading the documents, Ms. Burrell quickly instructed him to stop. Afterwards, Ms. Burrell’s legal team sent the documents, sealed in an envelope, to the Employment Tribunal after discussions with Sinclair over an undertaking failed to produce an agreement.
Sinclair sought a without notice injunction from the High Court to stop Ms. Burrell and her husband from using or disclosing the documents. However, the High Court ultimately set aside the injunction, calling attention to significant issues with Sinclair’s approach.
Court’s Decision
The High Court identified several issues with Sinclair’s application for the injunction.
The court underscored the essential requirement for full and balanced disclosure in without notice applications. Sinclair’s evidence was notably one-sided. While claiming to preserve the status quo, the company omitted any mention of how its proposed undertakings far exceeded this goal, essentially demanding the complete surrender of the documents by Ms. Burrell.
The court criticised Sinclair’s use of this procedure, which should only be employed when secrecy is absolutely necessary. Here, secrecy was unwarranted. Ms. Burrell, who had an unblemished professional record as a solicitor, had already informed Sinclair’s legal representatives about the documents and had taken prudent steps to handle them appropriately. The court saw no justification for excluding her or her husband from the process.
Finally, the court determined that the Employment Tribunal was the proper venue for resolving the dispute. The tribunal was well-placed to assess key matters, such as whether the documents revealed wrongdoing that would override legal professional privilege. The tribunal’s costs-free system also reduced financial pressure on Ms. Burrell, ensuring a more equitable process.
Key Takeaway Points
This case serves as a reminder of the responsibilities that come with seeking an injunction. Here are the primary lessons from the court’s ruling:
The court highlighted that effective communication could have avoided High Court proceedings altogether. Had the parties agreed on a practical compromise, such as an arrangement to “hold the ring,” they could have preserved the status quo while allowing the tribunal to take appropriate steps.
Courts expect applicants to present their evidence in a balanced and transparent manner. Any failure to meet this high standard can undermine the application and lead to significant consequences.
Without notice procedures should only be used in exceptional cases where secrecy is genuinely necessary. Sinclair’s failure to meet this standard attracted significant criticism from the court.
The High Court determined that the Employment Tribunal was better equipped to manage this dispute. Unlike the High Court, where the losing party typically bears the costs of both sides, the tribunal’s structure, in which each party covers their own costs, created a fairer environment for Ms. Burrell. Employers should avoid resorting to High Court applications as a means of imposing financial pressure, especially when more suitable forums are readily available.
Final Thoughts
While injunctions can be an effective legal tool, they come with stringent duties. It is essential for parties to act with reason, explore avenues for compromise, and approach the courts with full transparency and fairness. Failure to do so can lead to reputational harm, financial loss, and setbacks in achieving desired legal outcomes.
Legal disclaimer
The matters contained within this article are intended to be for general information purposes only. This blog does not constitute legal advice, nor is it a complete or authoritative statement of the law in England and Wales and should not be treated as such.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that the information is correct, no warranty, either express or implied, is given as to its’ accuracy, and no liability is accepted for any errors or omissions.
Before acting on any of the information contained herein, expert advice should always be sought.
© Melissa Worth, July 2025