The Delivery Group Ltd & Anor v Yeo [2021] EWHC 1834 (QB) (01 July 2021)

The Delivery Group Ltd & Anor v Yeo [2021] EWHC 1834 (QB) (01 July 2021)

The court held that the claimants demonstrated a likely prospect of success at trial on the enforceability and breach of the non-dealing covenant, justifying an interim injunction. The covenants were found to protect legitimate business interests, were reasonable in scope, and damages would be inadequate. However, there was no sufficient evidence to support an injunction for breach of confidentiality or to justify ancillary orders for delivery up or affidavit disclosure.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1834
Parties
Claimant: The Delivery Group Limited; Claimant: Postal Choices Limited; Defendant: Christopher Mark Yeo
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / Interim Application Before Trial
Outcome
Interim injunction granted in respect of the non-dealing covenant until expedited trial; applications for confidentiality injunction, delivery up, and affidavit disclosure refused.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Non Dealing Clauses, Confidential Information, Interim Injunctions, Post Termination Obligations
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Non Dealing Clauses Confidential Information Interim Injunctions Post Termination Obligations

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Delivery Group Limited

Claimant

Postal Choices Limited

Claimant

Christopher Mark Yeo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / Interim Application Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the non-dealing covenant in the Restrictive Covenant Deed is enforceable and justifies interim injunctive relief
  2. 2 Whether the defendant has breached confidentiality obligations justifying an injunction
  3. 3 Whether ancillary orders for delivery up and affidavit disclosure should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the claimants demonstrated a likely prospect of success at trial on the enforceability and breach of the non-dealing covenant, justifying an interim injunction. The covenants were found to protect legitimate business interests, were reasonable in scope, and damages would be inadequate. However, there was no sufficient evidence to support an injunction for breach of confidentiality or to justify ancillary orders for delivery up or affidavit disclosure.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted in respect of the non-dealing covenant until expedited trial; applications for confidentiality injunction, delivery up, and affidavit disclosure refused.

Orders

  • Defendant restrained from dealing with restricted and pipeline customers until trial or 14 December 2021, whichever is earlier.
  • Applications for injunction regarding confidential information, delivery up of documents, and affidavit disclosure refused.