Source Bioscience UK Ltd & Ors v Wheatcroft & Anor [2021] EWHC 2909 (QB) (27 August 2021)

Source Bioscience UK Ltd & Ors v Wheatcroft & Anor [2021] EWHC 2909 (QB) (27 August 2021)

There is a serious issue to be tried as to whether the restrictive covenants remain binding on the first defendant after his promotions; damages would not be an adequate remedy for the claimants due to the risk of loss of confidential information and competitive advantage; the balance of convenience favours the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2909
Parties
Claimant: Source Bioscience UK Limited; Claimant: Source Bioscience Limited; Claimant: SourceBio International PLC; Defendant: Russell Wheatcroft; Defendant: AID Genomics UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application (employment/restrictive Covenants) / Interim Relief Hearing Before Trial
Outcome
Interim injunction granted in terms of clauses (d) and (e) of the draft order; undertakings accepted from both defendants as to the remaining relief sought.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Interim Injunctions, Confidential Information, Non Solicitation, Non Competition, Employee Poaching
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Interim Injunctions Confidential Information Non Solicitation Non Competition Employee Poaching

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Source Bioscience UK Limited

Claimant

Source Bioscience Limited

Claimant

SourceBio International PLC

Claimant

Russell Wheatcroft

Defendant

AID Genomics UK Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application (employment/restrictive Covenants) / Interim Relief Hearing Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim injunctive relief should be granted to enforce post-termination restrictive covenants against a former employee
  2. 2 Whether the restrictive covenants remain binding after promotion and contract variation
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for breach of covenants

Ratio Decidendi

There is a serious issue to be tried as to whether the restrictive covenants remain binding on the first defendant after his promotions; damages would not be an adequate remedy for the claimants due to the risk of loss of confidential information and competitive advantage; the balance of convenience favours the claimants, as the relief sought is limited in scope and duration and merely holds the first defendant to his contractual obligations; and the delay in seeking relief is adequately explained and does not preclude the grant of an injunction. It is just and convenient to grant the interim relief sought.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted in terms of clauses (d) and (e) of the draft order; undertakings accepted from both defendants as to the remaining relief sought.

Orders

  • First defendant restrained until 29 September 2021 from being involved in any capacity with any business concern in competition with any Restricted Business (clause d).
  • First defendant restrained until 29 September 2021 from providing goods or services to or having business dealings with any Restricted Customer in competition with any Restricted Business (clause e).