Tensator Group Ltd. & Anor v Falzon & Ors

Tensator Group Ltd. & Anor v Falzon & Ors

There are serious questions to be tried regarding enforceability and existence of restrictive covenants, but the balance of convenience does not favour granting further injunctive relief due to delay, limited period remaining, and existing undertakings. Damages are not clearly adequate, but the business has operated for four months and it would be unfair to impose stop-start restrictions at this stage.

Parties
Claimant: Tensator Group Limited; Claimant: Tensator Limited; Defendant: Richard Falzon; Defendant: Tracy Falzon; Defendant: Stephen Yule; Defendant: David Tuppin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Interim Relief
Outcome
Application for further injunctive relief refused
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Injunctions, Confidential Information, Restraint of Trade, Balance of Convenience
Employment Law Equity Restrictive Covenants Injunctions Confidential Information Restraint of Trade Balance of Convenience

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tensator Group Limited

Claimant

Tensator Limited

Claimant

Richard Falzon

Defendant

Tracy Falzon

Defendant

Stephen Yule

Defendant

David Tuppin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Interim Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim injunctive relief should be granted to enforce restrictive covenants against former employees
  2. 2 Whether the claimants have clean hands to seek equitable relief
  3. 3 Whether the restrictive covenants are reasonable and enforceable

Ratio Decidendi

There are serious questions to be tried regarding enforceability and existence of restrictive covenants, but the balance of convenience does not favour granting further injunctive relief due to delay, limited period remaining, and existing undertakings. Damages are not clearly adequate, but the business has operated for four months and it would be unfair to impose stop-start restrictions at this stage.

Court Disposition

Application for further injunctive relief refused

Orders

  • Existing undertakings by defendants to remain in force until trial or further order
  • No further order made on the application