A MATTRESS manufacturer and two of its former directors are set to face each other in court amid claims the pair have gone into business using confidential information.

Bosses at the MPT Group, based in Bacup, insist that Shaun Peel, their ex-technical manager, and Michael Birtwistle, a former sales manager, had acted illegally by being involved in the formation of rival MattressTek.

The High Court in Manchester has heard that Mr Peel and Mr Birtwistle resigned from their posts at MPT, in New Line, in August 2016, and MattressTek was incorporated on March 3.

Tina Ranales-Cotos, for MPT, said it would be argued at trial that the defendants had wrongly downloaded and misused confidential information from MPT, resigned from the firm with the intention of setting up a rival and not been truthful about their future intentions.

The allegations further cover claims that they wrongly solicited the company’s clients, during the six months after their resignation, and had interfered with their supply chain, the court heard.

Edward Pepperall QC, a deputy high court judge, was told that the case would revolve around the launch of three machines by MattressTek, one allowing tape edging to be fixed to a mattress, another to insert ‘tufts’ and the third a belt-driven conveyor.

The pair are also accused of ignoring solicitors’ letters, reminding them of their contractual obligations after departing MPT.

Kelly Pennifer, for the defendants, said the claimant was attempting to contend that their confidential information should have “perpetual protection” when much of it would have a “shelf life”.

An application to allow wide-ranging relief to MPT, protecting their interests before a trial, anticipated in October, was rejected by Judge Pepperall.

But the judge granted an injunction preventing the defendants from “retaining, copying, using manufacturing machines” relating to MPT’s technical drawings, customer lists, supplier lists or materials database.

Judge Pepperall said: “In a case such as this, where the defendants have admitted both taking and using (albeit to a limited extent) their former employer’s confidential information, I consider that the claimant is entitled to some protection pending trial.”

Lawyers from MPT have argued that Mr Peel claimed he wanted to leave the firm to work as a freelance designer and Mr Birtwistle was not planning to work in the mattress industry after his departure.

The judge said: “I am far from satisfied that these employees were under a duty to disclose their true intentions to MPT.”

The court heard that the combined legal costs for both parties, even before the trial, had already reached £150,000.