White Digital Media Ltd v Weaver & Anor [2013] EWHC 1681 (QB) (18 June 2013)

White Digital Media Ltd v Weaver & Anor [2013] EWHC 1681 (QB) (18 June 2013)

The restrictive covenants in the Non-Compete Deed were unenforceable as they were too wide, vague, and contrary to public policy, particularly regarding the employment of former colleagues and the broad definition of 'Critical Person'. The confidentiality claim was not sufficiently precise to justify an injunction, as the information was either no longer confidential or not clearly identified.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1681 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: White Digital Media Ltd; First Defendant: Ben Weaver; Second Defendant: Outlook Publishing Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application in Civil Proceedings / Interlocutory (application for Interim Relief)
Outcome
Interim injunction refused except for orders not opposed by Defendants
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Confidential Information, Interim Injunctions, Enforceability of Employment Restraints
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Confidential Information Interim Injunctions Enforceability of Employment Restraints

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

White Digital Media Ltd

Claimant

Ben Weaver

First Defendant

Outlook Publishing Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application in Civil Proceedings / Interlocutory (application for Interim Relief)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the restrictive covenants in the Non-Compete Deed enforceable against the First Defendant?
  2. 2 Is the definition of 'Critical Person' too vague to be enforceable?
  3. 3 Are the Defendants in breach of confidentiality obligations?

Ratio Decidendi

The restrictive covenants in the Non-Compete Deed were unenforceable as they were too wide, vague, and contrary to public policy, particularly regarding the employment of former colleagues and the broad definition of 'Critical Person'. The confidentiality claim was not sufficiently precise to justify an injunction, as the information was either no longer confidential or not clearly identified.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction refused except for orders not opposed by Defendants

Orders

  • Order for First Defendant to make affidavit explaining documents and information taken from Claimant
  • No interim injunction granted on restrictive covenants or confidentiality beyond agreed orders