Elektron Technology plc 

("Elektron" or the "Company")

Derivative Claim - Update

In its 2015 Annual Report, on page 18, the Company provided an update in relation to the derivative litigation brought by a shareholder, Mr Bridge, who holds at the date of this announcement 1.83% of the Company's ordinary shares.

On 16 and 17 June 2015 Mr Bridge's application for permission to continue the intended claim against certain current directors, Keith Daley and John Wilson, and certain former directors, Noah Franklin and Simon Acland, (together "the Directors") was considered by the High Court in the Liverpool District Registry.

Mr Bridge represented himself at the hearing and both the Company and the Directors were represented by counsel instructed by their respective solicitors.

Permission has been refused by His Honour Judge Hodge QC with the effect that, subject to rights of appeal, the Derivative Claim will not continue.

In his judgment refusing permission, and addressing the Company's case, Judge Hodge QC was entirely satisfied that this was a clear case where the Court should refuse permission. The nature and strength of the claim, in light of the evidence of the Directors and the difficulty in establishing loss to the Company, were such that no reasonable director would support continuation of the litigation.

His Lordship was satisfied that the Court should not compel the Company to continue the litigation when disinterested shareholders were not in support, and neither was the independent board.

The Judge, having noted that a failure to properly and impartially consider the Company's evidence was a feature that had permeated all of Mr Bridge's submissions, accepted the Company's submission that the way Mr Bridge had conducted the litigation meant that it would not be appropriate to allow him to conduct litigation on the Company's behalf, or to require the Company to lend its name to the action.

Mr Bridge has been ordered to pay all the costs of the Company and the Directors.  He must make payments on account in the sums of £40,000 (in respect of the Company's costs) and £50,000 (in respect of the costs of the Directors) by close of business on 15 July 2015. Further, costs incurred after the wasted hearing on 1 October 2014 have been awarded on the indemnity basis as, by that time and with the benefit of legal representation, Mr Bridge should have seen the action as doomed for failure. His decision to continue it took the case "outside the commercial norm".

Mr Bridge did not apply for permission to appeal at the hearing, but he has 21 days from 17 June 2015 to do so. Any application for permission would need to be made to the Court of Appeal, setting out his grounds.

Further updates will be provided in due course as appropriate.

For further information:

Notes to Editors

Elektron conceives, designs and markets innovative engineered products and services for businesses at its technology hub in Cambridge. It has a multi skilled team of engineers and product line specialists focused on the opportunities created by disruptive global trends in the following areas:

·         Demand for ubiquitous power and data: Connectivity Solutions

·         Internet of Things, cloud computing and mobile devices: enabling automation and management of a new wave of business processes: Checkit

·         Growth in high precision manufacture: Nano-positioning

·         Healthcare for the ageing population: Ophthalmology

·         Connected customer experiences and service delivery: E-Commerce and E-Service

In addition, Elektron owns a portfolio of well-established products and brands which provide customer access and feedback.

Elektron Technology is headquartered in Cambridge and its shares are admitted to trading on the AIM market of the London Stock Exchange.