Dyson Technology Ltd v Pellerey [2016] EWCA Civ 87 (12 February 2016)

Dyson Technology Ltd v Pellerey [2016] EWCA Civ 87 (12 February 2016)

Project E was part of DTL's business for the purposes of the restrictive covenant; Tesla's business was similar to DTL's; Dr Pellerey's proposed employment at Tesla would be in competition with DTL; the restraint was reasonable and necessary to protect DTL's confidential information; and the injunction was properly granted as a matter of discretion.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 87
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Dyson Technology Limited; Defendant/appellant: Pierre Pellerey
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Expedited Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Confidential Information, Springboard Injunctions, Enforcement of Post Employment Restraints, Interpretation of Employment Contracts
Employment Law Contract Law Equity Restrictive Covenants Confidential Information Springboard Injunctions Enforcement of Post Employment Restraints Interpretation of Employment Contracts

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dyson Technology Limited

Claimant/respondent

Pierre Pellerey

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Expedited Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Project E was part of the 'business being carried on' by Dyson Technology Limited for the purposes of the restrictive covenant
  2. 2 Whether Tesla's business was 'similar to' DTL's business and thus a 'Restricted Business' under the contract
  3. 3 Whether Dr Pellerey's proposed employment with Tesla would be 'so as to compete' with DTL

Ratio Decidendi

Project E was part of DTL's business for the purposes of the restrictive covenant; Tesla's business was similar to DTL's; Dr Pellerey's proposed employment at Tesla would be in competition with DTL; the restraint was reasonable and necessary to protect DTL's confidential information; and the injunction was properly granted as a matter of discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Injunction restraining Dr Pellerey from working for Tesla or any Restricted Business until after 15 June 2016 upheld
  • No order restraining use of confidential information