Dass Solicitors v Southcott

Dass Solicitors v Southcott

Springboard relief is appropriate where an employee breaches the duty of fidelity and leaves without notice, soliciting clients, and damages are not an adequate remedy; an injunction is just and convenient for the notice period.

Parties
Applicant/claimant: Dass Solicitors; Respondent/defendant: William Southcott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Employment Injunction Application / Ex Parte (on Notice) Hearing, Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Injunction granted for three months from 27 March 2009 to 27 June 2009; costs reserved; permission to appeal refused at this stage.
Legal Topics
Springboard Relief, Duty of Fidelity, Notice Period, Solicitation of Clients, Breach of Contract
Employment Law Injunctions Springboard Relief Duty of Fidelity Notice Period Solicitation of Clients Breach of Contract

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

Employment Injunction Application / Ex Parte (on Notice) Hearing, Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached the express and implied terms of his employment contract by leaving without notice and soliciting clients
  2. 2 Whether springboard relief is available absent misuse of confidential information
  3. 3 Whether damages are an adequate remedy

Ratio Decidendi

Springboard relief is appropriate where an employee breaches the duty of fidelity and leaves without notice, soliciting clients, and damages are not an adequate remedy; an injunction is just and convenient for the notice period.

Court Disposition

Injunction granted for three months from 27 March 2009 to 27 June 2009; costs reserved; permission to appeal refused at this stage.

Orders

  • Defendant restrained from soliciting clients of the claimants for three months from 27 March 2009 to 27 June 2009
  • Costs reserved