Basic Solutions Ltd v Sands [2008] EWHC 1388 (QB) (23 June 2008)

Basic Solutions Ltd v Sands [2008] EWHC 1388 (QB) (23 June 2008)

The restrictive covenants were unenforceable due to excessive duration and scope, and the provision of samples did not constitute 'supply' under the contract. The Claimant failed to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried regarding breach of confidence, as evidence showed Super Grip was independently developed. The balance of convenience favoured the Defendant, and public interest supported competition.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 1388
Parties
Claimant: Basic Solutions Limited; Defendant: Robert Sands
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application for interim injunction refused
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Breach of Confidence, Non Compete Clauses, Confidential Information, Interim Injunctions
Employment Law Contract Law Equity Restrictive Covenants Breach of Confidence Non Compete Clauses Confidential Information 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Basic Solutions Limited

Claimant

Robert Sands

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether restrictive covenants in the employment contract are enforceable
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant breached contractual or equitable duties of confidence
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant's actions constituted unfair competition

Ratio Decidendi

The restrictive covenants were unenforceable due to excessive duration and scope, and the provision of samples did not constitute 'supply' under the contract. The Claimant failed to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried regarding breach of confidence, as evidence showed Super Grip was independently developed. The balance of convenience favoured the Defendant, and public interest supported competition.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunction refused

Orders

  • No injunction granted
  • Defendant permitted to participate in tendering process