OTS Logistics Belgium NV & Anor v Clarke & Anor [2010] EWHC 3202 (QB) (06 December 2010)

OTS Logistics Belgium NV & Anor v Clarke & Anor [2010] EWHC 3202 (QB) (06 December 2010)

There is a serious issue to be tried regarding whether the defendant breached restrictive covenants and misused confidential information, but the evidence of solicitation and misuse is thin. Damages are not an adequate remedy for either party, but the balance of convenience does not favour granting an injunction at this stage. The appropriate course is to order a speedy trial and require the defendant to confirm by affidavit that he holds no confidential documents or information belonging to the claimants.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 3202
Parties
Claimant: OTS Logistics Belgium NV; Claimant: Ocean Express Limited; Defendant: Robert Paul Clarke; Defendant: Britam Shipping Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / Interlocutory
Outcome
Interim injunction refused; speedy trial ordered
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Non Compete Clauses, Confidential Information, Solicitation of Customers and Suppliers, Interim Injunctions
Contract Law Employment Law Restrictive Covenants Non Compete Clauses Confidential Information Solicitation of Customers and Suppliers Interim Injunctions

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

OTS Logistics Belgium NV

Claimant

Ocean Express Limited

Claimant

Robert Paul Clarke

Defendant

Britam Shipping Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached restrictive covenants in a share sale and purchase agreement and a director's service agreement
  2. 2 Whether confidential information was misused
  3. 3 Whether there was solicitation of customers, suppliers, or personnel in breach of contract

Ratio Decidendi

There is a serious issue to be tried regarding whether the defendant breached restrictive covenants and misused confidential information, but the evidence of solicitation and misuse is thin. Damages are not an adequate remedy for either party, but the balance of convenience does not favour granting an injunction at this stage. The appropriate course is to order a speedy trial and require the defendant to confirm by affidavit that he holds no confidential documents or information belonging to the claimants.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction refused; speedy trial ordered

Orders

  • No order restraining the defendants from carrying on business or solicitation pending trial
  • Defendant to swear affidavit confirming no possession of claimants' confidential documents or information