Freshasia Foods Ltd v Jing Lu [2018] EWHC 3644 (Ch) (04 January 2019)

Freshasia Foods Ltd v Jing Lu [2018] EWHC 3644 (Ch) (04 January 2019)

The court held that the non-solicitation clause, though poorly drafted and overbroad in parts, was arguably enforceable in a severed, limited form pending trial, as it protected a legitimate business interest and the offending parts could be excised. The non-compete clause was too broad and unlikely to be enforceable, so no interim injunction was granted on that basis. The balance of convenience favoured a limited injunction reflecting the contract's wording, given the modest impact on the defendant and the arguable merits, with the law on severance to be clarified at trial or by the Supreme Court.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 3644 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Freshasia Foods Limited; Defendant: Jing Lu
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application in Employment Dispute / Post Pleadings, Pre Trial, Interim Relief
Outcome
Limited interim injunction granted in respect of the non-solicitation clause; application for non-compete injunction refused.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Non Solicitation Clauses, Non Compete Clauses, Severance of Contractual Terms, Interim Injunctions
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Non Solicitation Clauses Non Compete Clauses Severance of Contractual Terms Interim 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 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Freshasia Foods Limited

Claimant

Jing Lu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application in Employment Dispute / Post Pleadings, Pre Trial, Interim Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the non-solicitation clause in the defendant's employment contract is enforceable and justifies interim injunctive relief
  2. 2 Whether the non-compete clause is enforceable and justifies interim injunctive relief
  3. 3 Whether offending parts of the non-solicitation clause are severable under current law

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the non-solicitation clause, though poorly drafted and overbroad in parts, was arguably enforceable in a severed, limited form pending trial, as it protected a legitimate business interest and the offending parts could be excised. The non-compete clause was too broad and unlikely to be enforceable, so no interim injunction was granted on that basis. The balance of convenience favoured a limited injunction reflecting the contract's wording, given the modest impact on the defendant and the arguable merits, with the law on severance to be clarified at trial or by the Supreme Court.

Court Disposition

Limited interim injunction granted in respect of the non-solicitation clause; application for non-compete injunction refused.

Orders

  • Defendant restrained until trial from soliciting, selling to, or delivering to certain customers of the claimant as defined in the order, without claimant's consent.
  • No injunction granted in respect of non-compete clause.