Boxxer Ltd v Wischhusen [2025] EWHC 2386 (KB) (19 September 2025)

Boxxer Ltd v Wischhusen [2025] EWHC 2386 (KB) (19 September 2025)

The claimant established a serious issue to be tried regarding the enforceability and breach of contractual restrictive covenants. Damages would not be an adequate remedy for the claimant due to the risk of irreparable harm to business relationships and reputation, while damages would be adequate for the defendant, who will continue to be paid. The balance of convenience strongly favours the grant of an injunction to prevent the defendant from working for a competitor or undermining the claimant's interests pending trial.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 2386 (KB)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Boxxer Limited; Defendant/respondent: John Wischhusen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application in Breach of Contract Claim / Interlocutory (application for Interim Relief Pending Expedited Trial)
Outcome
Interim injunction granted in the terms sought by the claimant.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Restrictive Covenants, Breach of Contract, Employee Competition, Adequacy of Damages, Balance of Convenience
Employment Law Contract Law Interim Injunctions Restrictive Covenants Breach of Contract Employee Competition Adequacy of Damages Balance of Convenience

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boxxer Limited

Claimant/applicant

John Wischhusen

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application in Breach of Contract Claim / Interlocutory (application for Interim Relief Pending Expedited Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to an interim injunction restraining the defendant from working for a competitor or potential competitor pending trial
  2. 2 Whether the contractual terms relied upon by the claimant are enforceable and binding on the defendant
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for either party

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant established a serious issue to be tried regarding the enforceability and breach of contractual restrictive covenants. Damages would not be an adequate remedy for the claimant due to the risk of irreparable harm to business relationships and reputation, while damages would be adequate for the defendant, who will continue to be paid. The balance of convenience strongly favours the grant of an injunction to prevent the defendant from working for a competitor or undermining the claimant's interests pending trial.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted in the terms sought by the claimant.

Orders

  • The defendant is restrained, until trial or further order, from contacting any boxer or their representatives except for the claimant's benefit; engaging in work for any boxing-related venture other than the claimant; contacting claimant's employees regarding boxing-related services for others; corresponding with...