Lonmar Global Risks Ltd v West & Ors [2010] EWHC 2878 (QB) (11 November 2010)

Lonmar Global Risks Ltd v West & Ors [2010] EWHC 2878 (QB) (11 November 2010)

The court held that the restrictive covenants were reasonable and enforceable, the defendants breached their contractual and fiduciary duties by soliciting clients and employees and transferring business to Tyser, and Tyser induced these breaches. However, the court found that the claimant failed to prove that the admitted or established wrongdoing caused the alleged loss, and thus the claim for damages failed.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 2878
Parties
Claimant: Lonmar Global Risks Limited (formerly SBJ Global Risks Limited); First Defendant: Barrie West; Second Defendant: Laurence Niel Mee; Third Defendant: Stephen Karpus; Fourth Defendant: Tyser & Co Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 November 2010
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Claim (queen's Bench Division) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Breach of Contract, Fiduciary Duties, Confidential Information, Non Solicitation, Conspiracy, Inducement of Breach of Contract
Employment Law Contract Law Commercial Law Restrictive Covenants Breach of Contract Fiduciary Duties Confidential Information Non Solicitation +2 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lonmar Global Risks Limited (formerly SBJ Global Risks Limited)

Claimant

Barrie West

First Defendant

Laurence Niel Mee

Second Defendant

Stephen Karpus

Third Defendant

Tyser & Co Limited

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Claim (queen's Bench Division) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants breached their employment contracts and fiduciary duties by soliciting clients and employees and transferring business to a competitor
  2. 2 Whether restrictive covenants in the employment contracts were enforceable
  3. 3 Whether the defendants and Tyser & Co induced breaches of contract and conspired to injure the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the restrictive covenants were reasonable and enforceable, the defendants breached their contractual and fiduciary duties by soliciting clients and employees and transferring business to Tyser, and Tyser induced these breaches. However, the court found that the claimant failed to prove that the admitted or established wrongdoing caused the alleged loss, and thus the claim for damages failed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for damages dismissed as causation of loss not proven
  • No injunction granted