The alleged conspiracy was said to be an agreement or concerted action by the defendants, at a time when some of them were still directors of Secarma (the first and second Respondents), to recruit key employees of Secarma to join Xcina (the fourth and fifth Appellants), a rival cyber-security business to Secarma. The springboard injunction prohibited the defendants from carrying out activities that were damaging to the business of Secarma, and was intended to prevent Xcina from benefiting from the commercial advantage which the Respondents claimed Xcina had wrongly achieved from the alleged conspiracy. The Appellants challenged the grant of the interim injunction on a number of grounds.

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court had considered whether the balance of convenience lay in favour of granting or refusing the interim injunction, and it had correctly concluded that Secarma would not be adequately compensated in damages for any loss sustained as a result of Xcina continuing to do what might be found at the trial to have been unlawful activity.