Chambers obtains final injunction after cyber-attack

Nicklin: Defendant has not engaged with the proceedings

A London chambers hit by a cyber-attack has secured a final injunction from the High Court against “persons unknown”.

The injunction, granted by Mr Justice Nicklin this week, warns the unknown defendants that if they disclose any confidential information taken from 4 New Square they may be held to be in contempt of court and “imprisoned or fined or have their assets seized”.

Nicklin J granted default judgment to 4 New Square Ltd and 87 members of chambers, represented by Pinsent Masons, having determined their application on the papers.

The move follows an interim injunction granted by Mrs Justice Steyn following the cyber-attack in June this year.

The latest injunction orders the defendant not to “use, publish or communicate or disclose to any other person”, apart from their lawyers, any part of the information referred to in a confidential schedule.

The unknown defendant must, by 4pm on 27 September, deliver up to the claimants’ solicitors and/or delete the information in their “possession, custody or control”, and by a week later provide a witness statement confirming this has been done.

Nicklin J gave the claimants had permission to serve the order on the defendant at the email address set out in a confidential schedule. He said the defendant had not engaged with the proceedings at all.

“Little has changed since the hearing before Steyn J on 28 June 2021. Having considered the most recent witness statement, I am satisfied that the claimants are entitled to default judgment.”

Luke Tucker Harrison, a partner at London litigation practice Keidan Harrison, described injunctions against ‘persons unknown’ as “an important weapon in the defence and counter-attack against cyber criminals”.

He went on: “Its jurisdiction is flexible and, whilst defendants often don’t engage in the proceedings, the existence of the injunction leaves open a quick route to committal proceedings if they, or anyone who aids or abets them, are later identified.”

He said further court orders often yielded useful information which could “lay a trail to the principal wrongdoers or third parties, who may then be pursued for any losses”.

Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Microsoft 365’s dirty little secret

Microsoft 365 (formerly called Office 365) is one of the most widely used cloud services in the world, controlling around 48% of the market share for major office suites.

A new route to practice rights for chartered legal executives

Following approval from the Legal Services Board in May 2022, CILEx Regulation has launched an alternative route for chartered legal executives to obtain independent practice rights.

NFTs, the courts and the role of injunctions

In May, news broke that a non-fungible token was the subject of a successful injunction made by the Singapore High Court. The NFT in question is part of the very valuable Bored Ape Yacht Club series.

Loading animation