Aquinas Education Ltd v Miller & Ors [2018] EWHC 404 (QB) (02 March 2018)

Aquinas Education Ltd v Miller & Ors [2018] EWHC 404 (QB) (02 March 2018)

The court found that the defendants had obtained a modest head start by unlawfully using confidential information and breaching contractual duties, but that the advantage was limited to approximately six weeks, which had already been neutralized by the interim injunctions in place. No ongoing springboard advantage was demonstrated, so no further springboard injunction was warranted.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 404
Parties
Claimant: Aquinas Education Limited; First Defendant: Dorian Miller; Second Defendant: Max Pembleton; Third Defendant: Charles Anthony Gatter; Fourth Defendant: Link3 Recruitment Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Interim Application for Injunction (springboard and Confidential Information) / Interlocutory (pre Trial)
Outcome
Springboard injunction refused; ongoing injunction restraining use of confidential information continued until trial or further order.
Legal Topics
Springboard Injunctions, Breach of Confidence, Breach of Contract, Employee Duties, Restrictive Covenants, Confidential Information
Employment Law Commercial Law Springboard Injunctions Breach of Confidence Breach of Contract Employee Duties Restrictive Covenants Confidential Information

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 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aquinas Education Limited

Claimant

Dorian Miller

First Defendant

Max Pembleton

Second Defendant

Charles Anthony Gatter

Third Defendant

Link3 Recruitment Limited

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Application for Injunction (springboard and Confidential Information) / Interlocutory (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to a springboard injunction against the defendants and, if so, for how long
  2. 2 What ongoing injunction should be granted to restrain use of confidential information or trade secrets

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendants had obtained a modest head start by unlawfully using confidential information and breaching contractual duties, but that the advantage was limited to approximately six weeks, which had already been neutralized by the interim injunctions in place. No ongoing springboard advantage was demonstrated, so no further springboard injunction was warranted.

Court Disposition

Springboard injunction refused; ongoing injunction restraining use of confidential information continued until trial or further order.

Orders

  • Defendants enjoined from using or disclosing any documents or information caught by clause 10.2 of their contracts and defined confidential information until trial or further order.
  • No continuing springboard injunction granted.