Landmark Brickwork Ltd v Sutcliffe & Ors

Landmark Brickwork Ltd v Sutcliffe & Ors

Interim injunctions granted where there is a serious issue to be tried regarding enforceability of restrictive covenants and misuse of confidential information, damages are inadequate, and the balance of convenience favours the claimant. Area covenant is too uncertain to be enforceable; non-solicitation and non-dealing covenants may be enforceable given the seniority of the First Defendant. Orders for identification and disclosure of tenders are refused as premature.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Landmark Brickwork Limited; First Defendant/respondent: William Sutcliffe; Second Defendant/respondent: Paul Parkhouse; Third Defendant/respondent: Landmark Groundworks Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunctions
Outcome
Interim injunctions granted in part; other applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Confidential Information, Fiduciary Duty, Interlocutory Injunctions, Inducement of Breach of Contract, Springboard Injunctions
Employment Law Commercial Law Equity Restrictive Covenants Confidential Information Fiduciary Duty Interlocutory Injunctions Inducement of Breach of Contract +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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Landmark Brickwork Limited

Claimant/appellant

William Sutcliffe

First Defendant/respondent

Paul Parkhouse

Second Defendant/respondent

Landmark Groundworks Limited

Third Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Enforceability of post-termination restrictive covenants
  2. 2 Use and disclosure of confidential information
  3. 3 Inducement and participation in breach of fiduciary duty

Ratio Decidendi

Interim injunctions granted where there is a serious issue to be tried regarding enforceability of restrictive covenants and misuse of confidential information, damages are inadequate, and the balance of convenience favours the claimant. Area covenant is too uncertain to be enforceable; non-solicitation and non-dealing covenants may be enforceable given the seniority of the First Defendant. Orders for identification and disclosure of tenders are refused as premature.

Court Disposition

Interim injunctions granted in part; other applications dismissed.

Orders

  • Against the First Defendant: restrained from soliciting, accepting orders, or doing business with specified customers for six months; restrained from inducing suppliers to cease supply; restrained from using or disclosing wrongfully downloaded client list.
  • Against the Third Defendant: restrained from inducing the First Defendant to breach obligations to the Claimant.