Le Puy Ltd v Potter & Anor

Le Puy Ltd v Potter & Anor

The court held that there is a serious question to be tried as to whether the first defendant is bound by the alleged contract and whether the restrictive covenants and confidential information clauses are enforceable. The evidence establishes a sufficiently arguable case to justify continuation of the interim injunction. Damages would not be an adequate remedy for the claimant, and the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction pending a speedy trial.

Parties
Claimant: Le Puy Limited; First Defendant: Christopher Alan Potter; Second Defendant: Abstract Recruitment Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Employment/commercial (interim Injunction) / Ruling on Application to Continue Interim Injunction
Outcome
Interim injunction continued pending speedy trial
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Post Termination Restraints, Confidential Information, Restraint of Trade, Adequacy of Damages, Balance of Convenience
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Interim Injunctions Post Termination Restraints Confidential Information Restraint of Trade Adequacy of Damages +1 more

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Le Puy Limited

Claimant

Christopher Alan Potter

First Defendant

Abstract Recruitment Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Employment/commercial (interim Injunction) / Ruling on Application to Continue Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a serious question to be tried regarding the enforceability of post-termination restrictive covenants and confidential information obligations in the alleged contract of employment between the claimant and the first defendant
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has established a sufficient case for the continuation of the interim injunction
  3. 3 Whether the restrictive covenants and confidential information clauses are reasonable and enforceable or void as unlawful restraints of trade

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that there is a serious question to be tried as to whether the first defendant is bound by the alleged contract and whether the restrictive covenants and confidential information clauses are enforceable. The evidence establishes a sufficiently arguable case to justify continuation of the interim injunction. Damages would not be an adequate remedy for the claimant, and the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction pending a speedy trial.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction continued pending speedy trial

Orders

  • The interim injunction is continued against the first defendant and Abstract Recruitment Limited, restraining them from breaching the post-termination restrictive covenants and confidential information obligations in the alleged contract, pending trial.
  • Directions are to be given for a speedy trial in April 2015 on all issues except causation and quantum of loss.