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 non-dealing covenant is justified by the defendant's access to confidential information and client connections in a specialised market; the claimants have demonstrated a likelihood of success at trial and damages would not be adequate. The balance of convenience favours granting an interim injunction restraining the defendant from dealing with restricted customers pending trial. There is insufficient evidence to justify confidentiality or ancillary orders.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1834 (QB)
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 / Contested Interim Hearing
Outcome
Application for interim non-dealing injunction granted; confidentiality and ancillary orders refused.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Confidential Information, Non Dealing Injunctions, Post Termination Obligations
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Confidential Information Non Dealing 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 6 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 / Contested Interim Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim injunction should be granted to enforce non-dealing and confidentiality covenants against a former employee
  2. 2 Whether the restrictive covenants are reasonable and protect legitimate business interests
  3. 3 Whether there is a serious issue to be tried and whether damages are adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The non-dealing covenant is justified by the defendant's access to confidential information and client connections in a specialised market; the claimants have demonstrated a likelihood of success at trial and damages would not be adequate. The balance of convenience favours granting an interim injunction restraining the defendant from dealing with restricted customers pending trial. There is insufficient evidence to justify confidentiality or ancillary orders.

Court Disposition

Application for interim non-dealing injunction granted; confidentiality and ancillary orders refused.

Orders

  • Interim injunction restraining defendant from dealing with restricted customers until trial or 14 December 2021.
  • No order for confidentiality injunction.