City Site Solutions Limited v Liam Baker & Ors

City Site Solutions Limited v Liam Baker & Ors

The claimant established a high degree of assurance of success at trial on its claims for breach of contract, misuse of confidential information, and enforceability of post-termination restrictions. The court found the PTRs reasonable and proportionate, the claimant had legitimate interests to protect, and damages would not be adequate. The balance of convenience favoured granting modified injunctive relief, disclosure, device imaging, and limited springboard relief. The respondents’ arguments on constructive dismissal, unlawful access, and vagueness of PTRs were rejected at this stage.

Parties
Claimant: City Site Solutions Limited; First Defendant: Liam Baker; Second Defendant: Daniel Griffiths; Third Defendant: Josh Sartain; Fourth Defendant: Cornerstone Project Source Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Employment/commercial / Interim Application for Injunctive Relief and Directions for Speedy Trial
Outcome
Interim injunctive relief granted in modified form; directions for speedy trial; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Confidential Information, Post Termination Restrictions, Springboard Relief, Injunctive Relief
Employment Law Commercial Law Equity Breach of Contract Confidential Information Post Termination Restrictions Springboard Relief Injunctive Relief

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

City Site Solutions Limited

Claimant

Liam Baker

First Defendant

Daniel Griffiths

Second Defendant

Josh Sartain

Third Defendant

Cornerstone Project Source Limited

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Employment/commercial / Interim Application for Injunctive Relief and Directions for Speedy Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to interim injunctive relief against the first and fourth defendants
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to disclosure by affidavit from the first and fourth defendants
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to an order for imaging and inspection of devices

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant established a high degree of assurance of success at trial on its claims for breach of contract, misuse of confidential information, and enforceability of post-termination restrictions. The court found the PTRs reasonable and proportionate, the claimant had legitimate interests to protect, and damages would not be adequate. The balance of convenience favoured granting modified injunctive relief, disclosure, device imaging, and limited springboard relief. The respondents’ arguments on constructive dismissal, unlawful access, and vagueness of PTRs were rejected at this stage.

Court Disposition

Interim injunctive relief granted in modified form; directions for speedy trial; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Interim injunctions enforcing confidentiality and post-termination restrictions against the first defendant.
  • Order for affidavit evidence (limited to specified matters) from the first defendant and an officer of the fourth defendant.