Dyson Technology Ltd v Pellerey

Dyson Technology Ltd v Pellerey

The post-termination restraint in Pellerey's employment contract is enforceable as it is no wider than reasonably necessary to protect Dyson's legitimate business interests in confidential information and trade secrets. Pellerey's proposed employment with Tesla would infringe the covenant, and an injunction is justified to prevent inadvertent disclosure of confidential information. The springboard injunction is also appropriate due to Pellerey's breach of the notification clause, which resulted in access to confidential information he would not otherwise have obtained.

Parties
Claimant: Dyson Technology Limited; Defendant: Pierre Pellerey
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Expedited Trial / Judgment
Outcome
Injunction granted restraining Pellerey from working for Tesla until 15 June 2016, subject to cessation if Dyson discontinues its electric car project earlier.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Non Compete Clauses, Springboard Injunctions, Breach of Confidence, Trade Secrets, Restraint of Trade
Employment Law Contract Law Confidentiality Law Restrictive Covenants Non Compete Clauses Springboard Injunctions Breach of Confidence Trade Secrets +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 35 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dyson Technology Limited

Claimant

Pierre Pellerey

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Expedited Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the post-termination restraint in the employment contract enforceable?
  2. 2 Is Dyson entitled to a springboard injunction?
  3. 3 Is an injunction to restrain breach of confidence justified?

Ratio Decidendi

The post-termination restraint in Pellerey's employment contract is enforceable as it is no wider than reasonably necessary to protect Dyson's legitimate business interests in confidential information and trade secrets. Pellerey's proposed employment with Tesla would infringe the covenant, and an injunction is justified to prevent inadvertent disclosure of confidential information. The springboard injunction is also appropriate due to Pellerey's breach of the notification clause, which resulted in access to confidential information he would not otherwise have obtained.

Court Disposition

Injunction granted restraining Pellerey from working for Tesla until 15 June 2016, subject to cessation if Dyson discontinues its electric car project earlier.

Orders

  • Pellerey restrained from taking up employment with Tesla until 15 June 2016.
  • Dyson to notify Pellerey if work on the electric car project is discontinued, at which point the injunction ceases.