Dass Solicitors v Southcott [2009] EWHC 3753 (Ch) (02 April 2009)

Dass Solicitors v Southcott [2009] EWHC 3753 (Ch) (02 April 2009)

Springboard injunctive relief is available to prevent a former employee from taking unfair advantage of serious breaches of contract, including solicitation of clients during employment and failure to give notice, even in the absence of misuse of confidential information. Damages are not an adequate remedy due to risk of redundancies and department closure. The balance of convenience favours granting a time-limited injunction.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 3753 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant/claimant: Dass Solicitors; Respondent/defendant: William Southcott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application (employment) / Ex Parte (on Notice) Interim Application
Outcome
Injunction granted
Legal Topics
Springboard Relief, Breach of Contract, Duty of Fidelity, Notice Period, Solicitation of Clients
Employment Law Injunctions Springboard Relief Breach of Contract Duty of Fidelity Notice Period Solicitation of Clients

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dass Solicitors

Applicant/claimant

William Southcott

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application (employment) / Ex Parte (on Notice) Interim Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached his employment contract by failing to give notice and soliciting clients while still employed
  2. 2 Whether springboard injunctive relief is available in the absence of misuse of confidential information
  3. 3 Whether damages are an adequate remedy for the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

Springboard injunctive relief is available to prevent a former employee from taking unfair advantage of serious breaches of contract, including solicitation of clients during employment and failure to give notice, even in the absence of misuse of confidential information. Damages are not an adequate remedy due to risk of redundancies and department closure. The balance of convenience favours granting a time-limited injunction.

Court Disposition

Injunction granted

Orders

  • Injunction granted restraining the defendant from soliciting clients for three months from 27 March 2009 to 27 June 2009
  • Costs reserved