Mimo Connect Ltd v Buley & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 909 (28 July 2023)

Mimo Connect Ltd v Buley & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 909 (28 July 2023)

The Court of Appeal held that the judge erred in refusing a speedy trial and in accepting limited undertakings from the defendants as adequate protection for the claimant. The balance of convenience and the evidence of misuse of confidential information and client diversion required the grant of interlocutory injunctions enforcing the restrictive covenants and prohibiting competition and client dealing pending trial. The case was not about company ownership but about breaches of fiduciary and contractual duties, and a speedy trial was plainly appropriate given the limited duration of the covenants.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Civ 909
Parties
Appellant (claimant): Mimo Connect Limited; Respondent (first Defendant): Matthew Robert Buley; Respondent (second Defendant): Grace Avalon Fever; Respondent (third Defendant): M/Y Connect Maritime Ltd; Respondent (fourth Defendant): Karl Mardell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Interlocutory Injunction Application / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Interlocutory Injunctions, Shareholders' Agreements, Fiduciary Duties, Confidential Information, Springboard Relief
Commercial Law Employment Law Company Law Restrictive Covenants Interlocutory Injunctions Shareholders' Agreements Fiduciary Duties Confidential Information +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mimo Connect Limited

Appellant (claimant)

Matthew Robert Buley

Respondent (first Defendant)

Grace Avalon Fever

Respondent (second Defendant)

M/Y Connect Maritime Ltd

Respondent (third Defendant)

Karl Mardell

Respondent (fourth Defendant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Interlocutory Injunction Application / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interlocutory injunctions enforcing restrictive covenants and prohibiting competition and client dealing should be granted pending trial
  2. 2 Whether a speedy trial should have been ordered
  3. 3 Adequacy of undertakings offered by defendants to protect claimant's interests

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge erred in refusing a speedy trial and in accepting limited undertakings from the defendants as adequate protection for the claimant. The balance of convenience and the evidence of misuse of confidential information and client diversion required the grant of interlocutory injunctions enforcing the restrictive covenants and prohibiting competition and client dealing pending trial. The case was not about company ownership but about breaches of fiduciary and contractual duties, and a speedy trial was plainly appropriate given the limited duration of the covenants.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Interlocutory injunctions granted against the first, second, and third defendants prohibiting competition and client dealing pending trial
  • Springboard relief granted (except against the fourth defendant)