Capgemini India Private Ltd & Anor v Krishnan [2014] EWHC 1092 (QB) (27 February 2014)

Capgemini India Private Ltd & Anor v Krishnan [2014] EWHC 1092 (QB) (27 February 2014)

The court held that while the undertakings given by the defendants are a material circumstance, they do not create an absolute bar to contesting the enforceability of the restrictive covenant. The claimants failed to establish a sufficient basis for an interim injunction, as there was no evidence of confidential information at risk, no realistic prospect of recovering lost business, and damages would be an adequate remedy. The application for interim injunction was dismissed.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 1092 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Capgemini India Private Limited; Claimant: Capgemini Financial Services UK; Defendant: Krishnan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Injunction / Interlocutory
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Restraint of Trade, Interim Injunctions, Compromise Agreements
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Restraint of Trade Interim Injunctions Compromise Agreements

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Capgemini India Private Limited

Claimant

Capgemini Financial Services UK

Claimant

Krishnan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Interim Injunction / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants are precluded from challenging enforceability of restrictive covenant due to undertakings given after termination of employment
  2. 2 Whether interim injunction should be granted to enforce post-termination restrictions

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while the undertakings given by the defendants are a material circumstance, they do not create an absolute bar to contesting the enforceability of the restrictive covenant. The claimants failed to establish a sufficient basis for an interim injunction, as there was no evidence of confidential information at risk, no realistic prospect of recovering lost business, and damages would be an adequate remedy. The application for interim injunction was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • application for interim injunction dismissed