Jewellery Appraisal Services v Belson & Ors [2005] EWHC 758 (QB) (11 April 2005)

Jewellery Appraisal Services v Belson & Ors [2005] EWHC 758 (QB) (11 April 2005)

There is a serious issue to be tried regarding the Defendants' alleged breaches of restrictive covenants, supported by corroborated evidence from multiple sources. The balance of convenience favours granting the injunction, as the risk of injustice to the Claimant if the injunction is refused outweighs any potential prejudice to the Defendants, who may continue legitimate business outside the covenants.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 758 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Jewellery Appraisal Services; Defendants: Belson and Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / Interlocutory (application for Interim Relief Pending Trial)
Outcome
Interim injunction granted in principle; Defendants to pay Claimant's costs of the application.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Interim Injunctions, Breach of Contract, Balance of Convenience, Goodwill Protection
Contract Law Employment Law Restrictive Covenants Interim Injunctions Breach of Contract Balance of Convenience Goodwill Protection

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jewellery Appraisal Services

Claimant

Belson and Others

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / Interlocutory (application for Interim Relief Pending Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a serious issue to be tried regarding breach of restrictive covenants by the Defendants
  2. 2 Whether the balance of convenience favours granting an interim injunction

Ratio Decidendi

There is a serious issue to be tried regarding the Defendants' alleged breaches of restrictive covenants, supported by corroborated evidence from multiple sources. The balance of convenience favours granting the injunction, as the risk of injustice to the Claimant if the injunction is refused outweighs any potential prejudice to the Defendants, who may continue legitimate business outside the covenants.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted in principle; Defendants to pay Claimant's costs of the application.

Orders

  • Interim injunction to restrain Defendants from breaching restrictive covenants pending trial.
  • Defendants to pay Claimant's costs of the application, with an interim payment of £3,500; further costs to be assessed.