Forse & Ors v Secarma Ltd & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 215 (13 March 2019)

Forse & Ors v Secarma Ltd & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 215 (13 March 2019)

The Court of Appeal held that the evidence disclosed a strong case of unlawful means conspiracy against the appellants, that damages would not be an adequate remedy for the respondents, and that the interim springboard injunction was justified to prevent further unfair competitive advantage. However, the injunction was too wide in scope as it extended to activities and individuals not subject to relevant covenants or breaches. The appeal was dismissed except to the extent of narrowing the injunction's scope.

Citation
[2019] EWCA Civ 215
Parties
Appellant: Daniel Forse; Appellant: Mark Robert Child; Appellant: Shearwater Group PLC; Appellant: Xcina Limited; Appellant: Xcina Consulting Limited; Respondent: Secarma Limited; Respondent: Secarma Group Limited; Respondent: UKFast.net Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Interim Injunction Order of High Court (queen's Bench Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in part; injunction narrowed in scope.
Legal Topics
Springboard Injunctions, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Restrictive Covenants, Directors' Duties, Employee Poaching, Interim Relief
Employment Law Commercial Law Tort Law Springboard Injunctions Unlawful Means Conspiracy Restrictive Covenants Directors' Duties Employee Poaching +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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Forse

Appellant

Mark Robert Child

Appellant

Shearwater Group PLC

Appellant

Xcina Limited

Appellant

Xcina Consulting Limited

Appellant

Secarma Limited

Respondent

Secarma Group Limited

Respondent

UKFast.net Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Interim Injunction Order of High Court (queen's Bench Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim springboard injunction was properly granted against the appellants for alleged conspiracy to injure by unlawful means
  2. 2 Whether the scope and duration of the injunction were appropriate and proportionate
  3. 3 Whether undertakings offered by the appellants were sufficient protection for the respondents

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the evidence disclosed a strong case of unlawful means conspiracy against the appellants, that damages would not be an adequate remedy for the respondents, and that the interim springboard injunction was justified to prevent further unfair competitive advantage. However, the injunction was too wide in scope as it extended to activities and individuals not subject to relevant covenants or breaches. The appeal was dismissed except to the extent of narrowing the injunction's scope.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in part; injunction narrowed in scope.

Orders

  • Interim springboard injunction upheld but limited to prevent only in-house pen testing and red teaming by corporate appellants using ex-Secarma employees recruited unlawfully.
  • Injunction not to extend to outsourcing activities, nor to individuals not subject to relevant covenants or breaches.