Brake Brothers Ltd v Ungless & Anor

Brake Brothers Ltd v Ungless & Anor

The restrictive covenants were enforceable because Brakes had legitimate interests in protecting confidential information, supplier connections, and staff stability. The covenants were reasonable in scope, duration, and limited to major competitors. The confidential information was sufficiently specified, memorable, and of commercial value. A non-competition clause was justified due to the difficulty of policing breaches of confidentiality. The court exercised its discretion to grant injunctions as the defendants would not suffer undue hardship and undertakings offered were insufficient to protect Brakes' interests.

Parties
Claimant: Brake Brothers Limited; Defendant: Darren Ungless; Defendant: Timothy Adams
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Speedy Trial
Outcome
judgment for the claimant
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Restraint of Trade, Confidential Information, Non Competition Clauses, Employment Contracts, Injunctions
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Restraint of Trade Confidential Information Non Competition Clauses Employment Contracts 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brake Brothers Limited

Claimant

Darren Ungless

Defendant

Timothy Adams

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Speedy Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restrictive covenants in the defendants' employment contracts are enforceable
  2. 2 Whether the covenants go no further than reasonably necessary to protect the claimant's legitimate business interests
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant an injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The restrictive covenants were enforceable because Brakes had legitimate interests in protecting confidential information, supplier connections, and staff stability. The covenants were reasonable in scope, duration, and limited to major competitors. The confidential information was sufficiently specified, memorable, and of commercial value. A non-competition clause was justified due to the difficulty of policing breaches of confidentiality. The court exercised its discretion to grant injunctions as the defendants would not suffer undue hardship and undertakings offered were insufficient to protect Brakes' interests.

Court Disposition

judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • Permanent injunctions granted restraining the defendants from breaching the restrictive covenants in their employment contracts, including working for specified competitors for six months post-termination.