Create Financial Management LLP v Lee & Anor [2020] EWHC 1933 (QB) (17 July 2020)

Create Financial Management LLP v Lee & Anor [2020] EWHC 1933 (QB) (17 July 2020)

The court found that damages would be an adequate remedy for the defendants if an interim injunction were wrongly granted, as any loss would be quantifiable and covered by the claimant's cross-undertaking. The court concluded that there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the alleged breaches and the existence of a springboard advantage, but the balance of convenience and adequacy of damages favored refusing interim relief. The claimant's conduct did not amount to a breach of the clean hands doctrine sufficient to bar relief. The application for an interim springboard injunction was refused.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1933 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Create Financial Management LLP; Defendant: Roger Lee; Defendant: Karen Scott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / Interlocutory (application for Interim Springboard Injunction Pending Expedited Trial)
Outcome
Application for interim springboard injunction refused
Legal Topics
Springboard Injunctions, Breach of Contract, Restrictive Covenants, Confidential Information, Adequacy of Damages, Balance of Convenience, Clean Hands Doctrine
Contract Law Employment Law Commercial Law Springboard Injunctions Breach of Contract Restrictive Covenants Confidential Information Adequacy of Damages +2 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Create Financial Management LLP

Claimant

Roger Lee

Defendant

Karen Scott

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / Interlocutory (application for Interim Springboard Injunction Pending Expedited Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants breached contractual obligations to hand over clients and delete confidential information
  2. 2 Whether the defendants gained an unlawful competitive advantage ('springboard') by such breaches
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to an interim springboard injunction restraining solicitation of clients pending trial

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that damages would be an adequate remedy for the defendants if an interim injunction were wrongly granted, as any loss would be quantifiable and covered by the claimant's cross-undertaking. The court concluded that there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the alleged breaches and the existence of a springboard advantage, but the balance of convenience and adequacy of damages favored refusing interim relief. The claimant's conduct did not amount to a breach of the clean hands doctrine sufficient to bar relief. The application for an interim springboard injunction was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for interim springboard injunction refused

Orders

  • No interim injunction granted; parties to proceed to expedited trial
  • No order for fortification of cross-undertaking in damages