TGS Baltic team (advocates Robertas Degesys, Rasa Zaščiurinskaitė and Dovilė Armalytė) successfully represented UAB Senojo Bokšto Klinika in the court of first instance and in the appellate court in a dispute with Svalbono Klinika UAB, V.S. and UAB Valdimara regarding compensation for damage of over EUR 150,000 caused by actions of unfair competition.
The dispute between two heath care institutions arose regarding actions of unfair competition, which were performed by Svalbono Klinika UAB together with V.S., the former head of UAB Senojo Bokšto Klinika who headed it for many years, and by reason of which UAB Senojo Bokšto Klinika lost most of its patients, a part of financing from a Territorial Health Insurance Fund, had to search for new employees and to develop services of the secondary level from the beginning.
The court of first instance satisfied 2/3 of the claimant’s claims. The court admitted that the respondents performed unlawful actions – solicited most of employees and patients of UAB Senojo Bokšto Klinika, used a misleadingly similar name. The court admitted that data about patients is to be treated as the claimant’s trade secret.
The appellate court upheld the conclusions of the court of first instance regarding unlawful actions, causal relationship and partially reversed the judgement of the court of first instance for the benefit of the claimant – its part regarding assessment of the incurred damages, satisfying the claimant’s statement of claim almost in full.
The complexity of the case was determined by the fact that the case involved settlement of complicated competition law, health care and personal data protection, indemnification and tax law issues. The court of first instance had ordered an expert examination for establishing the damage and its causes. The conclusion of the court expert examination was very unfavourable for the claimant as the court expert in fact made a conclusion that the claimant did not have any right to indemnification. The claimant, in its own turn, presented two private expert examinations performed by auditors and additional conclusions, refuting conclusions of the expert appointed by the court and confirming that UAB Senojo Bokšto Klinika suffered damages caused by the respondents’ actions. Both the court of first instance and the appellate court, in assessing damages suffered by the claimant, referred namely to evidence presented by the claimant. The appellate court admitted that the court expert examination had no stronger proving power than any other evidence presented by the parties and it had to be evaluated in the context of all evidence. In addition, the court indicated that the court expert could not pronounce on circumstances that made the merits of the case, evaluation of which belonged only to the court competence.
