CEF Holdings Ltd & Anor v City Electrical Factors Ltd & Ors

CEF Holdings Ltd & Anor v City Electrical Factors Ltd & Ors

The restrictive covenants (non-competition and employee recruitment) were unenforceable as they were unreasonably wide, uncertain, and not necessary to protect legitimate interests. There was no evidence of conspiracy or misuse of confidential information to justify springboard relief. The court lacked jurisdiction over non-English domiciled defendants under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. The claimants failed in their duty of full and frank disclosure on the without notice application. The ex parte orders (except for delivery up) were discharged.

Parties
Claimant: CEF Holdings Limited; Claimant: City Electrical Factors Limited; Defendant: Brian Mundey; Defendant: Richard Kay; Defendant: Neil Davison; Defendant: Robert Shaw; Defendant: Steven Whitely; Defendant: Mark Abbey; Defendant: Richard Butterfield; Defendant: Mark Nolan; Defendant: Kevin Mallinson; Defendant: Robin Moorey; Defendant: Colin Stirrat; Defendant: Steven Kay; Defendant: Anthony Pidcock; Defendant: Chris Pidcock; Defendant: Gerry Brown; Defendant: Colin Middleton; Defendant: Dave Evans; Defendant: Adrian O’Donohue; Defendant: Craig Copland; Defendant: Complete Electric Solutions Ltd; Defendant: All Electric Solutions Limited; Defendant: Ashley Mackie; Defendant: Adam Mackie; Defendant: Andrew Singleton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application (injunction) in Civil Employment/commercial Dispute / Ruling on Interim Relief and Discharge of Ex Parte Orders
Outcome
Ex parte orders (except for delivery up) discharged; no interim injunction granted; further submissions invited on delivery up orders.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Springboard Relief, Jurisdiction, Injunctions, Full and Frank Disclosure, Restraint of Trade
Employment Law Commercial Law Civil Procedure Restrictive Covenants Springboard Relief Jurisdiction Injunctions Full and Frank Disclosure +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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CEF Holdings Limited

Claimant

City Electrical Factors Limited

Claimant

Brian Mundey

Defendant

Richard Kay

Defendant

Neil Davison

Defendant

Robert Shaw

Defendant

Steven Whitely

Defendant

Mark Abbey

Defendant

Richard Butterfield

Defendant

Mark Nolan

Defendant

Kevin Mallinson

Defendant

Robin Moorey

Defendant

Colin Stirrat

Defendant

Steven Kay

Defendant

Anthony Pidcock

Defendant

Chris Pidcock

Defendant

Gerry Brown

Defendant

Colin Middleton

Defendant

Dave Evans

Defendant

Adrian O’Donohue

Defendant

Craig Copland

Defendant

Complete Electric Solutions Ltd

Defendant

All Electric Solutions Limited

Defendant

Ashley Mackie

Defendant

Adam Mackie

Defendant

Andrew Singleton

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application (injunction) in Civil Employment/commercial Dispute / Ruling on Interim Relief and Discharge of Ex Parte Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the post-termination restrictive covenants (non-competition and employee recruitment) enforceable?
  2. 2 Is the claimant entitled to springboard relief?
  3. 3 Did the claimants fail in their duty of full and frank disclosure on the without notice application?

Ratio Decidendi

The restrictive covenants (non-competition and employee recruitment) were unenforceable as they were unreasonably wide, uncertain, and not necessary to protect legitimate interests. There was no evidence of conspiracy or misuse of confidential information to justify springboard relief. The court lacked jurisdiction over non-English domiciled defendants under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. The claimants failed in their duty of full and frank disclosure on the without notice application. The ex parte orders (except for delivery up) were discharged.

Court Disposition

Ex parte orders (except for delivery up) discharged; no interim injunction granted; further submissions invited on delivery up orders.

Orders

  • All interim injunctions (except delivery up) discharged for non-disclosure and lack of merit.
  • No relief granted on restrictive covenants or springboard relief.