Tullett Prebon Plc & Ors v BGC Brokers LP & Ors [2010] EWHC 484 (QB) (18 March 2010)

Tullett Prebon Plc & Ors v BGC Brokers LP & Ors [2010] EWHC 484 (QB) (18 March 2010)

The court found that BGC and certain individuals did conspire to induce breaches of contract by Tullett employees and that some restrictive covenants were enforceable. Some employee defendants were not constructively dismissed. Injunctive relief was appropriate to restrain further breaches. The counterclaim by BGC regarding the 'Tullett Three' was not upheld at this stage. Damages were reserved for later determination.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 484 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Tullett Prebon PLC; Claimant: Tullett Prebon Group Limited; Claimant: Tullett Prebon (UK) Limited; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: BGC Brokers L.P.; Defendant: BGC Brokers GP Limited; Defendant: Anthony Neil Verrier; Defendant: Shaun David Carl Edgar Lynn; Defendant: James Robert Hall; Defendant: Robert Leslie Sully; Defendant: Paul James Bishop; Defendant: Steven Harry Harkins; Defendant: Mark Andrew Yexley; Defendant: James Vincent Bowditch; Defendant: Kevin Charles Maurice Cohen; Defendant: Pelham Ashley Temple; Defendant: James Terence Wilkes; Defendant: Gavin David Matthews; Part 20 Defendant: Tullett Prebon PLC; Part 20 Defendant: Tullett Prebon Group Limited; Part 20 Defendant: Tullett Prebon (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Commercial/employment / Liability Trial (damages to Be Determined Separately)
Outcome
Liability established against BGC and certain individual defendants for conspiracy and inducement of breach of contract; injunctive relief granted; damages to be assessed separately; BGC's counterclaim not upheld at this stage.
Legal Topics
Conspiracy, Inducement of Breach of Contract, Constructive Dismissal, Restrictive Covenants, Misuse of Confidential Information, Injunctions
Employment Law Commercial Law Contract Law Conspiracy Inducement of Breach of Contract Constructive Dismissal Restrictive Covenants Misuse of Confidential Information +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 17
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tullett Prebon PLC

Claimant

Tullett Prebon Group Limited

Claimant

Tullett Prebon (UK) Limited

Claimant

BGC Brokers L.P.

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

BGC Brokers GP Limited

Defendant

Anthony Neil Verrier

Defendant

Shaun David Carl Edgar Lynn

Defendant

James Robert Hall

Defendant

Robert Leslie Sully

Defendant

Paul James Bishop

Defendant

Steven Harry Harkins

Defendant

Mark Andrew Yexley

Defendant

James Vincent Bowditch

Defendant

Kevin Charles Maurice Cohen

Defendant

Pelham Ashley Temple

Defendant

James Terence Wilkes

Defendant

Gavin David Matthews

Defendant

Tullett Prebon PLC

Part 20 Defendant

Tullett Prebon Group Limited

Part 20 Defendant

Tullett Prebon (UK) Limited

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial/employment / Liability Trial (damages to Be Determined Separately)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether BGC and individual defendants conspired to induce Tullett employees to breach their contracts
  2. 2 Whether Tullett employees were constructively dismissed
  3. 3 Whether restrictive covenants and post-termination restrictions were enforceable

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that BGC and certain individuals did conspire to induce breaches of contract by Tullett employees and that some restrictive covenants were enforceable. Some employee defendants were not constructively dismissed. Injunctive relief was appropriate to restrain further breaches. The counterclaim by BGC regarding the 'Tullett Three' was not upheld at this stage. Damages were reserved for later determination.

Court Disposition

Liability established against BGC and certain individual defendants for conspiracy and inducement of breach of contract; injunctive relief granted; damages to be assessed separately; BGC's counterclaim not upheld at this stage.

Orders

  • Continuation of injunctive relief restraining defendants from inducing further breaches or employing Tullett employees in breach of contract
  • Employee defendants to remain on garden leave pending further order