Swift Technical Group Holdings Ltd & Ors v Mulcahy

Swift Technical Group Holdings Ltd & Ors v Mulcahy

The restrictive covenants in the Investment Agreement do not bind the defendant as a non-executive director. The only enforceable obligations are those in the Non-Executive Directorship Agreement, which do not include post-termination non-compete restrictions. There is no basis for an injunction restraining the defendant from involvement in the Kazakh companies, but an order restraining disclosure of confidential information is justified.

Parties
Claimant: Swift Technical Group Holdings Limited; Claimant: Swift Technical Holdings Limited; Claimant: Swift Technical Group Limited; Claimant: Gresham LLP; Defendant: Mr Richard Mulcahy
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Interim Injunction Pending Trial
Outcome
Interim injunction refused as to non-compete; limited injunction granted as to confidentiality
Legal Topics
Directors' Duties, Confidentiality, Non Compete Clauses, Restraint of Trade
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Directors' Duties Confidentiality Non Compete Clauses Restraint of Trade

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Swift Technical Group Holdings Limited

Claimant

Swift Technical Holdings Limited

Claimant

Swift Technical Group Limited

Claimant

Gresham LLP

Claimant

Mr Richard Mulcahy

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Interim Injunction Pending Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is bound by restrictive covenants in the Investment Agreement after becoming a non-executive director
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are entitled to an interim injunction restraining the defendant from involvement in competing businesses
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is at risk of disclosing confidential information

Ratio Decidendi

The restrictive covenants in the Investment Agreement do not bind the defendant as a non-executive director. The only enforceable obligations are those in the Non-Executive Directorship Agreement, which do not include post-termination non-compete restrictions. There is no basis for an injunction restraining the defendant from involvement in the Kazakh companies, but an order restraining disclosure of confidential information is justified.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction refused as to non-compete; limited injunction granted as to confidentiality

Orders

  • Defendant restrained from using or disclosing confidential information relating to the claimants' business pending trial.