Data Kraken v Torry Harris: 5 lessons for software developer contractors

Data Kraken Consultancy Ltd is suing Torry Harris Business Solutions (Europe) Ltd in London’s High Court, alleging Torry Harris misused confidential information — including Data Kraken’s source code — to build a replacement for its DK Solution software so it could displace Data Kraken as the main supplier for Three Ireland’s prepaid brand, 48 Mobile. Torry Harris denies wrongdoing, disputing ownership, access, and jurisdiction. The case is undecided, but it already offers five practical lessons for contractors developing software, notably around guarding your company’s software when a big customer switches supplier.

Those five practical lessons for software development contractors from the case, which has the case number IL-2026-000011, are set out below, writes technology lawyer Evane Alexandre, an associate at digital and commercial law firm Gerrish Legal.

1. Control access, and its purpose: The “Permitted Purpose” clause is key.
2. Separate software rights from data rights: Focus on ownership, use, purpose, duration. 
3. Treat exit as a risk point: A contract approaching its expiry is that risk’s starting pistol.
4. Map responsibility across the supply chain: Know your contracts and any flow down obligations.
5. Think internationally: Is UK law in play if a system’s build and outputs were non-UK?

In brief: Data Kraken Consultancy v. Torry Harris Business Solutions

Data Kraken Consultancy Ltd (“Data Kraken”) licensed its data-warehousing software, DK Solution, to Three Ireland under a non-exclusive, royalty-free licence from January 2020 to December 2023.

As Data Kraken’s arrangement approached expiry, Torry Harris Business Solutions (Europe) Ltd (“Torry Harris”) developed a replacement for DK Solution at Three Ireland’s instruction.

At the heart of the dispute is a simple question: How was that replacement actually built?

Oxford-based Data Kraken says “unusual email alerts” in July 2023 led it to discover a replica running DK Solution. Three Ireland’s position is that Torry Harris created two replica servers to test security updates.

Data Kraken subsequently brought High Court proceedings against Torry Harris. It alleges that Torry Harris misused confidential information, including DK Solution’s source code, to develop a like-for-like replacement and displace Data Kraken as the main technology supplier for Three Ireland’s prepaid brand, 48 Mobile.

Bristol-headquartered Torry Harris denies wrongdoing. It says

• the replacement was developed independently;
• relevant database rights belonged to Three Ireland because it took the initiative in obtaining and verifying the database contents;
• its administrator access was limited to support;
• the relevant development and operation took place in Ireland, raising territorial questions over UK copyright and database rights.

At the time of writing (Sunday August 30th 2026), all these issues remain for the High Court to determine. But the dispute already highlights five practical lessons for contractor companies developing software.

1. Control access, and its purpose

Access granted for support can become contentious if a replacement product later emerges.

Contracts should define a clear “Permitted Purpose”, use role-based permissions, require audit logging and prohibit using support access for product development or benchmarking. Source code and production environments should be ring-fenced where possible.

That both reduces risk and preserves evidence of who accessed what, when and why.

2. Separate software rights from data rights

“Who owns the IP?” rarely has a single answer in 2026/27. A project nowadays typically involves copyright in source code, database rights, customer data, documentation and configurations.

Contracts should identify each category separately:

• who owns it (ownership)
• who may use it (usage)
• for what purpose (purpose)
• for how long (duration)

Confidentiality provisions should expressly cover source code and technical materials.

Crucially, ownership of underlying data does not necessarily determine who owns database rights in the collection containing it.

3. Treat exit as a risk point

Risk often peaks when a customer changes supplier, because the incumbent, replacement provider and customer teams may all need access at once.

Exit clauses should address transition assistance, temporary environments and copies, return or deletion of code and confidential information, backups and, where appropriate, certified deletion.

Restrictions on copying, decompilation and reverse engineering should also be drafted carefully and subject to applicable law.

4. Map responsibility across the supply chain

Small suppliers rarely operate in isolation. Contracts should identify who may access their technology, who is responsible for third parties, and whether equivalent confidentiality and use restrictions flow down to integrators and subcontractors.

Direct undertakings or third-party rights can provide additional protection.

5. Think internationally

A governing-law clause does not automatically make UK statutory IP rights worldwide. Where software may be hosted, accessed, copied or developed abroad, consider what protections apply where those acts occur.

Contractual controls on access, use and confidentiality can therefore be particularly important in cross-border projects.

The takeaway: Data Kraken v Torry Harris Business Solutions

For small technology businesses akin to the type contractors run, this dispute emphasises that negotiating leverage is greatest before signing an agreement, not after a replacement project has begun.

Clear rules on access, ownership, confidentiality, exit, third-party responsibility and cross-border use will not prevent every dispute. But they can make misuse harder, preserve evidence and put the developer in a stronger position if a customer later changes supplier. Which party ends up strongest when Data Kraken v Torry Harris Business Solutions (Europe) concludes remains to be seen — and that isn’t necessarily the same as which one wins in the High Court.

For ContractorUK readers and others who develop software, this High Court dispute is worth watching: it’s already a cautionary tale on how an independent developer’s software can be exposed when a larger customer switches supplier. The real question is whether your own contract would help or hinder you if the same thing happened to your business.