As many fellow shareholders will appreciate, Vertical Aerospace is attempting to build and certify a novel aircraft through thousands of hours of effort, refinement, collaboration and ingenuity. All at great expense and using risk capital provided by various investors and shareholders. Much of the work involved is commercially sensitive and confidential as it could be of great benefit to competitors and other nations. Given the potential economic benefit to Britain and military applications of Vertical Aerospace’s proposed aircraft there is also arguably a matter of national interests at stake.
Which makes me extremely troubled to read of a potential breach of contract by a now ex-Vertical Aerospace employee Thandiwe Ngoma, who I understand has accepted an offer of employment with Archer Aviation. An interim injunction request to protect confidential information after Ngoma’s resignation and new employment has recently been heard in the High Court of Justice. On Friday 8 May 2026 a judgment was handed down in court by circulation to the parties or their representatives by email and by release to the National Archives. The circulation can be read here…
https://www.iclr.co.uk/document/2026004010/2026ewhc1096kb_TNA/html
Based on the circulation contents one questions whether I and others have suffered, and or may suffer harm and loss from the conduct of this individual. One questions whether a company of arguably potential national importance may have suffered, and or may suffer harm and loss from the conduct of this individual. In time hopefully a court can confirm whether restrictive covenants between Vertical Aerospace and Thandiwe Ngoma have been breached. Should that be the case then we as shareholders may in the future want to consider and pursue a civil claim against Thandiwe Ngoma if it is appropriate and reasonable.
In the interim please contact me by DM if you or someone you know can provide court admissible evidence that proves the defendant has shared directly or indirectly with Archer Aviation staff, commercially sensitive and confidential information, in breach of restrictive covenants relating to Vertical Aerospace and any of its aircraft.
Has Thandiwe Ngoma betrayed Vertical Aerospace, its shareholders and Britain’s national interests?
by u/_DoubleBubbler_ in DoubleBubbler
These aspects from the circulation are particularly notable in my opinion…
15.
Meanwhile the Claimant’s IT team were analysing the Claimant’s laptop that had been used and returned by the Defendant following her resignation, as well as the Defendant’s electronic accounts and records (such as her Virtual Print Queue records). The findings of this analysis were reported to Sanjay Verma on 26**th March 2026. He is employed by the Claimant as the Chief Legal and Corporate Affairs Officer. The analysis revealed a number of matters:
(a)
The Claimant had tried unsuccessfully to print an ‘Aircraft Description document’ and another document on 8**th January 2026.
(b)
On 20**th January 2026 the Claimant had printed the ‘Aircraft Description document’. This contained extensive confidential information and engineering information. It is the version that was issued in September 2025. It is a 90 page document.
(c)
On 19**th February 2026 (eight days before her resignation) the Defendant uploaded to her Google Drive account a document entitled ‘VA-1 AC2 EHPS System Description Document’. This was the fifth issue of this document and is known as the ‘Propulsion document’. It provided a detailed overview of the propulsion system for the Claimant’s aircraft with a focus on the all-electric propulsion system. It is 56 pages in length. The document would be of significant value to any competitor to the Claimant.
(d)
Between the evening of 26**th February 2026 and midday on 27**th February 2026 (so very close in time to her resignation) the Defendant copied data content from documents that she had open on her work laptop. The analysis did not reveal what content was copied and pasted from those documents but three of the documents were themselves highly confidential. They were (i) a ‘Vehicle Functional Design’ document relating to certification (ii) ‘VX4 ConOps’ relating to the concept of operations for the VTOL aircraft and data that underpins design requirements and (iii) ‘AC2 HV System Description Document Issue 2’ relating to the high voltage system of the Claimant’s aircraft. An inference was that the data was being transferred on to the Defendant’s personal Google drive.
Some other notable points in my opinion…
26.
During the ruling the Judge referred to the three aspects of the Defendant’s conduct that gave cause for concern and stated:
“Those actions against the background of the timing, close to resignation, the fact that the respondent is moving to work for a competitor, the fact that when the respondent received a standard form letter asking about documentation, her response was in bland terms, referring to inconsequential material but not the Aircraft Description document or Propulsion document. There was a subsequent return of the printed document but no indication by the respondent of her copying the Propulsion document, nor what if any material was copied from the 9 documents on the night before her resignation.”
27.
In relation to whether it was appropriate to make an order without notice the Judge stated: “the question is whether there is a sufficient risk that the giving of notice could thwart the application.” The Judge does not appear, from the note of the hearing, to have overtly and separately answered that issue but in the context of whether to make a lesser order – a preservation order – he does address it by stating: “There is clear evidence that the Respondent has at least one incriminating document, potentially others. In light of her lack of frankness, destruction absent an imaging order is possible. I’ve reflected on a simple preservation order. I’m persuaded by Mr Nicholls due to lack of frankness and ease of destruction there is a risk the Respondent if not confronted with such an order would destroy the material”.
28.
In relation to the merits, the Judge stated:
“Then in terms of the imaging order, I have to be satisfied that there is a strong prima facie case that damage avoided by the order is serious. There must be clear evidence of possession and a significant risk of removal/destruction absent an order. I must also consider proportionality …… Here in terms of the overall position, I am satisfied that there is a legitimate and grave cause for concern … There is a strong prima facie case of a breach of duty, Potential for serious damage. Once material in the propulsion document is known, it cannot be unknown, in a field where there is a race to be the first developer of this craft. There is clear evidence that the Respondent has at least one incriminating document, potentially others. In light of her lack of frankness, destruction absent an imaging order is possible …. I’m satisfied the proposed order will not cause significant harm. An alternative device should be provided to her. The order ensures her confidential information is not seen by anyone other than the IT expert.”