Phoenix Partners Group Llp v Asoyag [2010] EWHC 846 (QB) (21 April 2010)

Phoenix Partners Group Llp v Asoyag [2010] EWHC 846 (QB) (21 April 2010)

The claimant failed to show a real prospect of establishing at trial that the defendant's activities for his new employer amounted to competition with Phoenix or breach of the relevant covenants, or that confidential information was misused. The restrictive covenants, while not unreasonable in duration or scope...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 846
Parties
Claimant: Phoenix Partners Group LLP; Defendant: Maurice Asoyag
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application (injunction) in Employment Dispute / Discharge of Interim Injunction
Outcome
Injunction discharged
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Restraint of Trade, Confidential Information, Interim Injunctions
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Restraint of Trade Confidential Information Interim Injunctions

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phoenix Partners Group LLP

Claimant

Maurice Asoyag

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application (injunction) in Employment Dispute / Discharge of Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached post-termination restrictive covenants in his employment contract
  2. 2 Whether the restrictive covenants are enforceable or void as unlawful restraints of trade
  3. 3 Whether the defendant misused confidential information belonging to the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to show a real prospect of establishing at trial that the defendant's activities for his new employer amounted to competition with Phoenix or breach of the relevant covenants, or that confidential information was misused. The restrictive covenants, while not unreasonable in duration or scope (except as to certain territories), did not apply to the defendant's conduct as Phoenix was not genuinely active in the relevant market. Damages would be an adequate remedy. The injunction was therefore discharged.

Court Disposition

Injunction discharged

Orders

  • Interim injunction granted on 25 March 2010 is discharged
  • No continuing restraint on the defendant under the contract covenants