High Court refuses to hand either side the 'keys to the kingdom' in Secret Mode v Victura

The Business and Property Courts have declined to grant either side of a dispute over the video game Six Days in Fallujah control of its continued development and publication pending trial, leaving both the game's publisher and its developer where they started.

Handing down judgement on 17 August 2026 in Secret Mode Limited & Anor v Victura, Inc, Mr Justice Richards refused competing applications for interim injunctions brought by Secret Mode Limited and Six Days Holdings Limited (together, the Publisher) and by Victura, Inc, the game's developer. Each application sought what counsel for Victura, Madeleine Heal, described as "the keys to the kingdom".

The litigation centres on a publishing agreement entered into in October 2025, under which Victura granted the Publisher rights to market and sell the game in exchange for development funding of up to $8 million and a marketing commitment of around $3 million. The agreement entitled the Publisher to exercise a Step In Right, assuming control of the game's development, if Victura repeatedly failed to deliver satisfactory milestone builds.

That mechanism became contentious after the Publisher rejected version 0.6 of the game, citing persistent problems with non-player characters freezing mid-action, known as stuck AI, and loading times. Following two failed resubmissions, the Publisher claimed to have validly exercised its Step In Right from 1 May 2026. Victura disputed this, purporting to terminate the agreement on 29 April 2026 for alleged repudiatory breach. It argued, among other things, that the Publisher had predetermined the rejection of the milestone to obtain access to its source code, in breach of an implied Braganza duty and as part of an alleged unlawful means conspiracy involving Splash Damage Limited and Emona Capital LLP.

Applying the American Cyanamid framework as summarised in National Commercial Bank Jamaica Ltd v Olint Corporation Ltd, the judge found that both parties' claims raised a serious issue to be tried and that damages would not be an adequate remedy for either, leaving the outcome to turn on the balance of convenience.

Victura's application failed principally on financial grounds. Although the judge accepted Victura had the expertise to continue development, he was not satisfied it had secure funding to complete both development and publication, nor sufficient resources to meet potential claims under its cross-undertaking in damages. He described its fundraising efforts as "based on hope rather than the presence of existing liquid facilities".

The Publisher's application fared better on the evidence, with the judge accepting it had adequate expertise and finances to see the project through. He nonetheless declined to grant relief, troubled by the prospect of handing over source code in which Victura had invested over $50 million against an outlay of only $2.6 million by the Publisher, and by the risk that the milestone rejection had been engineered to secure precisely that access. A transfer of the code also risked stalling development while a new team familiarised itself with it, potentially rendering any advantage illusory.

The judge suggested a negotiated accommodation, possibly assisted by Victura releasing its disputed version 0.8 build for evaluation, might serve both parties better than continued litigation. He did, however, order the Publisher to restore Victura's developer access to the PlayStation and Xbox developer portals, while declining to require the Publisher to relinquish its own access to those platforms.

The effect of the ruling is to preserve the status quo under the Agreement pending trial, with Victura remaining developer and the Publisher remaining publisher of the game.