Create Financial Management LLP v Lee & Anor [2020] EWHC 2046 (QB) (28 July 2020)

Create Financial Management LLP v Lee & Anor [2020] EWHC 2046 (QB) (28 July 2020)

The court permitted variation of the Schedule to remove clients where no real prospect existed of establishing a competitive advantage justifying an injunction; declined to make a declaration on third party contempt but modified the order's wording to avoid impasse; ordered the claimant to send corrective emails to affected clients and notify the defendants; and held it had no jurisdiction to grant permission to appeal as the application was not made at the appropriate time.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2046 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Create Financial Management LLP; Defendant: Roger Lee; Defendant: Karen Scott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Interim Application (injunction) / Post Judgment, Further Hearing on Consequential Matters
Outcome
Schedule to the injunction order varied; order wording modified; claimant to send corrective emails; application for permission to appeal refused for lack of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Springboard Injunctions, Interim Relief, Variation of Orders, Contempt of Court, Restrictive Covenants, Solicitation of Clients, Corrective Communications, Permission to Appeal
Commercial Law Employment Law Civil Procedure Springboard Injunctions Interim Relief Variation of Orders Contempt of Court Restrictive Covenants +3 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Create Financial Management LLP

Claimant

Roger Lee

Defendant

Karen Scott

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Application (injunction) / Post Judgment, Further Hearing on Consequential Matters

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clients should be removed from the Schedule to the injunction order
  2. 2 Whether third party financial providers could be in contempt for processing client transfers
  3. 3 Whether the claimant should send corrective letters to clients and third party providers

Ratio Decidendi

The court permitted variation of the Schedule to remove clients where no real prospect existed of establishing a competitive advantage justifying an injunction; declined to make a declaration on third party contempt but modified the order's wording to avoid impasse; ordered the claimant to send corrective emails to affected clients and notify the defendants; and held it had no jurisdiction to grant permission to appeal as the application was not made at the appropriate time.

Court Disposition

Schedule to the injunction order varied; order wording modified; claimant to send corrective emails; application for permission to appeal refused for lack of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Schedule to the Order varied to remove specified clients
  • Order wording on third party transfers to be revised as per paragraph 25