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)

Interlocutory injunctions are granted only in respect of those restrictive covenants and reliefs where there is a serious issue to be tried and the terms are sufficiently certain and reasonable. The area covenant is too uncertain and wide to be enforceable. Non-solicitation and non-dealing covenants, and springboard relief, are arguably enforceable given the First Defendant's seniority and access to confidential information. The Claimant's cross-undertaking in damages is adequate. Disclosure orders not directly supporting injunctive relief are refused.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1239 (QB)
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 (injunction) / High Court (queen's Bench Division) Interlocutory Hearing
Outcome
Interlocutory injunctions granted in part; other applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Confidential Information, Fiduciary Duties, Interlocutory Injunctions, Springboard Relief, Non Solicitation, Non Dealing, Breach of Contract
Employment Law Commercial Law Equity Restrictive Covenants Confidential Information Fiduciary Duties Interlocutory Injunctions Springboard Relief +3 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 6 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 (injunction) / 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 maturing business opportunities of the Claimant
  3. 3 Whether interlocutory injunctive relief should be granted against the Defendants

Ratio Decidendi

Interlocutory injunctions are granted only in respect of those restrictive covenants and reliefs where there is a serious issue to be tried and the terms are sufficiently certain and reasonable. The area covenant is too uncertain and wide to be enforceable. Non-solicitation and non-dealing covenants, and springboard relief, are arguably enforceable given the First Defendant's seniority and access to confidential information. The Claimant's cross-undertaking in damages is adequate. Disclosure orders not directly supporting injunctive relief are refused.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory 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' (1(c), 1(e)), and from inducing suppliers to cease supply (1(g)), and from using or disclosing wrongfully downloaded client list (2(i)) save for requirement to identify names/numbers.
  • Third Defendant restrained from inducing First Defendant to breach undertakings or orders (paragraph 2).