Maris Interiors LLP v Pleckinger & Ors [2011] EWHC 2260 (QB) (15 September 2011)

Maris Interiors LLP v Pleckinger & Ors [2011] EWHC 2260 (QB) (15 September 2011)

There are triable issues regarding use of confidential information and inducement of breaches by the 6th and 7th defendants; interlocutory injunctions are appropriate against them pending trial, but not against the 4th and 5th defendants due to lack of evidence of breach. Orders for provision of information are not proportionate or necessary at this stage.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2260 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Maris Interiors LLP; Defendant: Bruce Pleckinger; Defendant: Anthony Ellis; Defendant: Robert Gregory; Defendant: Yusuf Heptullabhai; Defendant: Andrew Marshall; Defendant: Wayne Judge; Defendant: Area Sq. Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Civil Proceedings / Joinder of Parties and Interim Relief Prior to Trial
Outcome
Interlocutory injunctions granted against 6th and 7th defendants; 4th and 5th defendants joined as parties but no relief ordered against them.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Confidential Information, Non Solicitation, Joinder of Parties, Interlocutory Injunctions
Employment Law Commercial Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Confidential Information Non Solicitation Joinder of Parties Interlocutory Injunctions

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maris Interiors LLP

Claimant

Bruce Pleckinger

Defendant

Anthony Ellis

Defendant

Robert Gregory

Defendant

Yusuf Heptullabhai

Defendant

Andrew Marshall

Defendant

Wayne Judge

Defendant

Area Sq. Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application in Civil Proceedings / Joinder of Parties and Interim Relief Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants breached confidentiality and restrictive covenants post-employment
  2. 2 Whether defendants retained or used claimant's property or confidential information
  3. 3 Whether defendants solicited claimant's clients or induced breaches of contract

Ratio Decidendi

There are triable issues regarding use of confidential information and inducement of breaches by the 6th and 7th defendants; interlocutory injunctions are appropriate against them pending trial, but not against the 4th and 5th defendants due to lack of evidence of breach. Orders for provision of information are not proportionate or necessary at this stage.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunctions granted against 6th and 7th defendants; 4th and 5th defendants joined as parties but no relief ordered against them.

Orders

  • 6th and 7th defendants restrained from using or disclosing claimant's confidential information and from inducing breaches of contract pending trial.
  • 7th defendant required to clarify in affidavit what enquiries have been made regarding possession of claimant's property and results thereof.