Landmark Brickwork Ltd v Sutcliffe & Ors [2011] EWHC 1239 (QB) (17 May 2011)

Landmark Brickwork Ltd v Sutcliffe & Ors [2011] EWHC 1239 (QB) (17 May 2011)

Interim injunctions are granted only in respect of those restrictive covenants and relief where there is a serious issue to be tried and the terms are sufficiently certain and reasonable; the area covenant is too uncertain to be enforceable, but non-solicitation and non-dealing covenants relating to customers and suppliers are arguably enforceable given the First Defendant's seniority and access to confidential information. The balance of convenience favours the Claimant, and the cross-undertaking in damages is adequate on the evidence. Orders for identification and disclosure of tenders and wide-ranging preservation of documents are refused as inappropriate at the interlocutory stage.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1239
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Landmark Brickwork Limited; First Defendant/respondent: William Sutcliffe; Second Defendant/respondent: Paul Parkhouse; Third Defendant/respondent: Landmark Groundworks Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Injunctions and Related Orders / High Court (queen's Bench Division) Interlocutory Hearing
Outcome
Interim injunctions granted in part; other applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Confidential Information, Fiduciary Duties, Springboard Injunctions, Non Solicitation, Non Dealing, Inducement of Breach of Contract
Employment Law Commercial Law Equity Restrictive Covenants Confidential Information Fiduciary Duties Springboard Injunctions 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Landmark Brickwork Limited

Claimant/appellant

William Sutcliffe

First Defendant/respondent

Paul Parkhouse

Second Defendant/respondent

Landmark Groundworks Limited

Third Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Injunctions and Related Orders / High Court (queen's Bench Division) Interlocutory Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether post-termination restrictive covenants in the First Defendant's contract are enforceable
  2. 2 Whether the First Defendant misused confidential information and business opportunities of the Claimant
  3. 3 Whether the Second and Third Defendants induced or participated in breaches of contract or fiduciary duty

Ratio Decidendi

Interim injunctions are granted only in respect of those restrictive covenants and relief where there is a serious issue to be tried and the terms are sufficiently certain and reasonable; the area covenant is too uncertain to be enforceable, but non-solicitation and non-dealing covenants relating to customers and suppliers are arguably enforceable given the First Defendant's seniority and access to confidential information. The balance of convenience favours the Claimant, and the cross-undertaking in damages is adequate on the evidence. Orders for identification and disclosure of tenders and wide-ranging preservation of documents are refused as inappropriate at the interlocutory stage.

Court Disposition

Interim injunctions granted in part; other applications dismissed.

Orders

  • First Defendant restrained for six months from soliciting, canvassing, or doing business with Claimant's customers on list 'A' (non-solicitation, non-dealing) and from inducing suppliers to cease supply (paragraphs 1(c), 1(e), 1(g) and 2(i) of Draft Amended Order, except for requirement to identify names/numbers).
  • Third Defendant restrained from inducing First Defendant to breach obligations (paragraph 2 of Draft Amended Order).