Forse & Ors v Secarma Ltd & Ors

Forse & Ors v Secarma Ltd & Ors

The evidence disclosed a strong case of unlawful means conspiracy by the appellants to poach Secarma employees and build a competing business, justifying interim springboard relief. Damages would not be an adequate remedy due to the difficulty of quantifying loss. The injunction was appropriate to prevent further unfair advantage but was too wide in scope as it extended to activities and individuals not subject to relevant covenants or obligations.

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
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interim Injunction Order
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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
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

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interim Injunction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim springboard injunction was properly granted against the appellants
  2. 2 Whether the scope and duration of the injunction were appropriate and proportionate
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the respondents

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence disclosed a strong case of unlawful means conspiracy by the appellants to poach Secarma employees and build a competing business, justifying interim springboard relief. Damages would not be an adequate remedy due to the difficulty of quantifying loss. The injunction was appropriate to prevent further unfair advantage but was too wide in scope as it extended to activities and individuals not subject to relevant covenants or obligations.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in part; injunction narrowed in scope

Orders

  • Interim springboard injunction upheld but narrowed to exclude prohibitions on outsourcing pen testing, and to exclude Mr Forse and Mr Child personally from prohibitions where they were not subject to relevant covenants or obligations.