Court rules in favour of software engineer

The case revolves around software engineer Anthony Gifford’s claim that his groundbreaking software idea, aimed at modernising and digitising the care industry, was stolen by venture capital investor Hambro Perks (now Salica Investments). Gifford alleged that the defendants not only took his idea but also the confidential technical details of how the software functioned, which he had shared with them when pitching for investment. He argued that they misappropriated his idea and developed it independently, effectively blocking his ability to attract funding elsewhere by introducing a competing product to the market.

The claim was brought forward with the support of Henderson & Jones, a litigation funder, which funded the legal proceedings in exchange for Gifford assigning his rights and interests in the case to them. As a result, Henderson & Jones were named as the Claimants in the case. The Court ruled in favour of the Claimants and awarded them £2.15m in damages for breach of confidence, alongside interest and costs. The judgment referenced the ‘unashamed misappropriation of the work and ideas of others’ when addressing the defendants' actions, particularly in sections 146-150.

The ruling also clarified the application of the law concerning ‘adverse inferences’ related to the destruction of evidence. It was determined that adverse inferences could, and should, be drawn from Mr Perks’ deletion of emails and failure to preserve key evidence during the trial. The Court’s findings, particularly in paragraphs 247-250, made it clear that Perks’ conduct in this regard was unacceptable and damaging to the integrity of the case.

Piers Elliott (pictured), Managing Director of Henderson & Jones, expressed satisfaction with the judgment. He commented, “We’re very happy with the outcome and are delighted to have been able to assist Mr Gifford who has been fighting for justice for many years.”

Key excerpts from the judgment highlighted the extent of the misappropriation of Gifford’s ideas and information. In Paragraph 110, the Court found that Mr Perks had decided as early as February 2016 that he would not share the confidential information with Gifford or his colleague Mr Walker, opting instead to use it within his own company, Hambro Perks (now Salica). Paragraph 126 further corroborated this, stating that Perks had made the decision to use the “unique” and “brilliant” confidential information to launch the WeCare platform, which later became Vida, cutting out Gifford and Mr Walker entirely. 

During the trial, Mr Perks and Hambro Perks attempted to mislead the Court by presenting a false narrative. Paragraph 122 notes how they sought to give the false impression that Ms Wood, rather than Mr Jabir, had created WeCare, in an attempt to argue that they had not misused Gifford’s confidential information. The Court found this argument to be entirely unfounded.

The judgment also covered issues related to evidence destruction, particularly with respect to Mr Perks' use of a secret email account. Paragraph 226 explained that Perks had failed to disclose the existence of this account and had deleted emails from it to avoid giving evidence that would harm his case. This was a significant point in the judgment as it contributed to the adverse inferences drawn by the Court.

In Paragraphs 278 and 284, the Court reinforced its finding that Mr Perks and Hambro Perks had misused Gifford’s confidential information in the development of WeCare (which later rebranded as Vida). It was clear from the evidence that Perks stood to personally benefit financially from the misappropriation of the software concept. As a result, both Perks and Hambro Perks (now Salica Investments) were held jointly and severally liable for the damages.

The judgment serves as a significant reminder about the protection of intellectual property and confidential information, particularly in the competitive world of venture capital and tech startups. It also emphasises the legal consequences of destroying evidence and misrepresenting facts in a court case.