ICAP Management Services Ltd v Berry & Anor

ICAP Management Services Ltd v Berry & Anor

TUPE does not apply as there was no change of employer; the claimant remains the employer. The claimant is entitled to enforce garden leave against the first defendant to protect confidential information. The second defendant did not induce breach of contract, having relied on legal advice regarding TUPE.

Parties
Claimant: ICAP Management Services Limited; First Defendant: Dean Berry; Second Defendant: BGC Services (Holdings) LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claimant's application for injunction against first defendant granted; application against second defendant refused.
Legal Topics
TUPE Transfers, Garden Leave, Restrictive Covenants, Confidential Information, Inducement of Breach of Contract
Employment Law Contract Law TUPE Transfers Garden Leave Restrictive Covenants Confidential Information Inducement of 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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ICAP Management Services Limited

Claimant

Dean Berry

First Defendant

BGC Services (Holdings) LLP

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Employment / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) apply to the share sale and employment relationship?
  2. 2 Is the claimant entitled to enforce garden leave against the first defendant?
  3. 3 Did the second defendant induce breach of contract by employing the first defendant during garden leave?

Ratio Decidendi

TUPE does not apply as there was no change of employer; the claimant remains the employer. The claimant is entitled to enforce garden leave against the first defendant to protect confidential information. The second defendant did not induce breach of contract, having relied on legal advice regarding TUPE.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application for injunction against first defendant granted; application against second defendant refused.

Orders

  • Injunction granted enforcing garden leave against first defendant until 21 July 2017.
  • No injunction granted against second defendant.