High Court orders repayment after confidential data breach and threats involving 55,000 members
Confidential data breach allegations have resulted in a High Court order requiring Amit Mohan Sharma to repay a £50,000 termination payment after the court found clear breaches of a settlement agreement concerning confidential information.
His Honour Judge Jarman KC delivered judgment on 4 August 2026 in Espire Infolabs Limited v Amit Mohan Sharma in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales. The case concerned an application by Espire Infolabs Limited for summary judgment following alleged breaches of a settlement agreement entered into in July 2025.
Espire Infolabs provides IT services and had a private members’ club in London among its customers. The court heard that Sharma joined the company in May 2025 as a project manager on a six-month probationary period and was seconded to carry out project work at the club. His role gave him access to members’ personal data, including addresses, bank details and payment card information.
On 30 June 2025, the company told Sharma that his secondment would end on 18 July. Shortly afterwards, he said he had copied personal data belonging to about 55,000 club members and would reveal it unless he received £150,000, according to the judgment.
The parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement dated 4 July 2025. Under its terms, Espire Infolabs agreed to pay Sharma £15,000 on signing and a further £35,000 within seven days. The agreement also provided £1,000 for legal advice if required.
The agreement contained detailed obligations concerning confidential information. Sharma agreed to return and delete confidential material, avoid making copies and cooperate with inspections of his devices. It also restricted the disclosure or use of confidential information and prohibited contact with the claimant’s employees, customers and clients.
The company paid £15,000 when the agreement was signed. Sharma returned its laptop and confirmed by email that the relevant data had been deleted. An expert instructed by the company examined his personal devices to ensure the data had been removed.
A further payment of £27,000 was made about a week later after an emergency tax deduction. Sharma disputed the deduction. The company subsequently paid him the deducted £6,916.
The judgment records that Sharma then sent emails threatening to release confidential information. Between 25 and 31 July 2025, he sent numerous messages to the club, its members, Espire Infolabs and media organisations.
In one exchange, he provided screenshots of payments and a list of members’ addresses after being asked for evidence of the information he held. He said there was more information available.
The court also heard that Sharma contacted two club members on 28 July. The messages referred to leaked addresses and other sensitive details and warned of potential consequences for the members and their families.
On 31 July, he contacted media organisations and referred to high-profile members of the club, stating that he could provide evidence. The club reported Sharma to police on 7 August 2025. He was arrested the following evening and detained overnight, while his electronic devices were seized. On 11 August, he emailed the company’s solicitor and the club saying he had deleted all data.
The dispute continued. In October, further emails were sent to IT companies, while in November Sharma sent messages to the claimant’s solicitor referring to demands for money and the possibility of information being disclosed to clients and competitors.
The claimant obtained injunctions in November 2025 preventing further breaches of the settlement agreement. It later sought summary judgment, arguing that the emails and messages demonstrated clear breaches.
The company identified four alleged breaches: retaining and failing to delete members’ and clients’ details; sending derogatory statements to news organisations; threatening to use members’ personal data; and contacting customers or clients. The company argued that the breaches entitled it to recover the £50,000 termination payment as a debt and to obtain continuing injunctive relief.
Sharma opposed the application and advanced a counterclaim alleging, among other matters, negligence, abuse of process, harassment and breach of contractual duties. He also argued that issues surrounding the circumstances in which the settlement agreement had been made required a trial.
Judge Jarman KC rejected those arguments. The judge concluded that the defence and counterclaim had no real prospect of success and that there was no compelling reason for the matter to proceed to trial.
The judgment found that the settlement agreement clearly established what Sharma was required to do and prohibited from doing. The emails and text messages relied upon by Espire Infolabs demonstrated clear breaches and provided a basis for repayment of the termination payment. The court therefore granted summary judgment in favour of Espire Infolabs for repayment of the termination payment and continuing injunctive relief.
Rather than making the injunction permanent, however, Judge Jarman KC considered a four-year period more proportionate. Sharma was also permitted to seek other employment following an agreed exception to certain non-contact provisions.
The court directed the parties to file an agreed draft order, where possible, within 14 days of the judgment being handed down, together with written submissions on any matters that remained unresolved.