New ISG Ltd v Vernon & Ors [2007] EWHC 2665 (Ch) (14 November 2007)

New ISG Ltd v Vernon & Ors [2007] EWHC 2665 (Ch) (14 November 2007)

The Respondents' contracts of employment did not transfer to New ISG under TUPE 2006 regulation 4(7) because they objected to the transfer once informed of the transferee's identity; thus, New ISG cannot enforce the restrictive covenants. Additionally, Mr Harvey was not bound by the covenants as they were not incorporated into his contract. The injunctions should not be continued.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 2665 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: New ISG Limited; Defendant: Benjamin John Vernon; Defendant: Joseph David McMullin; Defendant: Tracey Suzanne Harvey; Defendant: Bryan Harvey; Defendant: Stacey Dee Austin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application (chancery Division) / Hearing to Continue or Discharge Interim Injunction Pending Trial
Outcome
Application to continue interim injunction refused; injunctions discharged.
Legal Topics
TUPE 2006, Restrictive Covenants, Interim Injunctions, Employee Consultation, Transfer of Undertakings, Confidential Information
Employment Law Insolvency Law Contract Law TUPE 2006 Restrictive Covenants Interim Injunctions Employee Consultation Transfer of Undertakings +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

New ISG Limited

Claimant

Benjamin John Vernon

Defendant

Joseph David McMullin

Defendant

Tracey Suzanne Harvey

Defendant

Bryan Harvey

Defendant

Stacey Dee Austin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application (chancery Division) / Hearing to Continue or Discharge Interim Injunction Pending Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restrictive covenants in the Respondents' contracts are enforceable by New ISG
  2. 2 Whether the Respondents objected to the transfer of their employment under TUPE 2006 regulation 4(7)
  3. 3 Whether New ISG is entitled to interim injunctive relief restraining the Respondents from soliciting clients or workers

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondents' contracts of employment did not transfer to New ISG under TUPE 2006 regulation 4(7) because they objected to the transfer once informed of the transferee's identity; thus, New ISG cannot enforce the restrictive covenants. Additionally, Mr Harvey was not bound by the covenants as they were not incorporated into his contract. The injunctions should not be continued.

Court Disposition

Application to continue interim injunction refused; injunctions discharged.

Orders

  • Interim injunctions restraining the Respondents from soliciting, canvassing, or dealing with clients or workers of New ISG are not continued.
  • No order for continuation of the restrictive covenants pending trial.