Capgemini India Private Ltd & Anor v Krishnan

Capgemini India Private Ltd & Anor v Krishnan

The existence of undertakings given by the defendants with independent legal advice is a material factor but does not create an absolute bar to challenging the reasonableness of the restrictive covenant. The court must consider all circumstances, including public policy and the merits of the clause. In this case, the claimants failed to establish that an interim injunction was necessary or just, as there was no evidence of confidential information at risk, no realistic prospect of regaining the lost business, and damages would be an adequate remedy.

Parties
Claimant: Capgemini India Private Limited; Claimant: Capgemini Financial Services UK; Defendant: Krishnan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment/commercial / Application for Interim Injunction
Outcome
Application for interim injunction dismissed
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Enforceability of Restrictive Covenants, Settlement Agreements, Interim Injunctions
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Restraint of Trade Enforceability of Restrictive Covenants Settlement Agreements 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Capgemini India Private Limited

Claimant

Capgemini Financial Services UK

Claimant

Krishnan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Employment/commercial / Application for Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants are precluded from challenging the enforceability of a restrictive covenant after giving undertakings to comply with it
  2. 2 Whether the restrictive covenant is an unreasonable restraint of trade
  3. 3 Whether an interim injunction should be granted to enforce the restrictive covenant

Ratio Decidendi

The existence of undertakings given by the defendants with independent legal advice is a material factor but does not create an absolute bar to challenging the reasonableness of the restrictive covenant. The court must consider all circumstances, including public policy and the merits of the clause. In this case, the claimants failed to establish that an interim injunction was necessary or just, as there was no evidence of confidential information at risk, no realistic prospect of regaining the lost business, and damages would be an adequate remedy.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunction dismissed

Orders

  • Application for interim injunction is dismissed