Dyson Technology Ltd v Pellerey

Dyson Technology Ltd v Pellerey

The post-employment restraint in Dr Pellerey's contract was enforceable as it was no wider than reasonably necessary to protect DTL's legitimate interests in confidential information. Project E was part of DTL's business, Tesla's business was similar, and Dr Pellerey's employment at Tesla would be in competition with DTL. The court found no sufficient reason to refuse an injunction, and the risk of inadvertent disclosure of confidential information justified the restraint. The 'springboard' injunction was not justified as the notification clause did not apply to the facts.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Dyson Technology Limited; Defendant/appellant: Pierre Pellerey
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Confidential Information, Injunctions, Restraint of Trade
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Confidential Information Injunctions Restraint of Trade

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dyson Technology Limited

Claimant/respondent

Pierre Pellerey

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the post-employment restraint in Dr Pellerey's contract was enforceable against him to prevent employment with Tesla.
  2. 2 Whether Dr Pellerey's involvement in Project E constituted engagement in DTL's business for the purposes of the restraint.
  3. 3 Whether Tesla's business was 'similar to' DTL's and thus a 'Restricted Business'.

Ratio Decidendi

The post-employment restraint in Dr Pellerey's contract was enforceable as it was no wider than reasonably necessary to protect DTL's legitimate interests in confidential information. Project E was part of DTL's business, Tesla's business was similar, and Dr Pellerey's employment at Tesla would be in competition with DTL. The court found no sufficient reason to refuse an injunction, and the risk of inadvertent disclosure of confidential information justified the restraint. The 'springboard' injunction was not justified as the notification clause did not apply to the facts.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Dr Pellerey is restrained until after 15 June 2016 from being employed or engaged by, or concerned or interested in, the business of any Tesla company or any Restricted Business in competition with DTL.
  • No injunction granted restraining use of confidential information.