Willis Ltd & Anor v Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group Plc & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 450 (22 April 2015)

Willis Ltd & Anor v Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group Plc & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 450 (22 April 2015)

The judge erred in concluding there was no real risk of further poaching and in failing to consider the ongoing effects of past wrongdoing (springboard advantage). The balance of convenience favoured the claimants, as the injunction would cause little harm to the respondents if they had no intention to recruit further staff, while the claimants faced significant risk of further destabilisation. The appeal was allowed and the interim injunction granted.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 450
Parties
Applicant: Willis Ltd & Another; Respondent: Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group PLC & Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Refusal of Interim Injunction / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; interim injunction granted pending return date.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Springboard Relief, Employee Poaching, Fiduciary Duties, Contractual Duties
Employment Law Commercial Law Interim Injunctions Springboard Relief Employee Poaching Fiduciary Duties Contractual Duties

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Willis Ltd & Another

Applicant

Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group PLC & Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Refusal of Interim Injunction / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to grant an interim injunction pending the return date was correct
  2. 2 Whether there was a real risk of further poaching of staff justifying injunctive relief
  3. 3 Whether springboard relief was appropriate in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in concluding there was no real risk of further poaching and in failing to consider the ongoing effects of past wrongdoing (springboard advantage). The balance of convenience favoured the claimants, as the injunction would cause little harm to the respondents if they had no intention to recruit further staff, while the claimants faced significant risk of further destabilisation. The appeal was allowed and the interim injunction granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; interim injunction granted pending return date.

Orders

  • Interim injunction granted against the first and second respondents in terms sought by the appellants, save for agreed exclusions.
  • Claimants' costs in the case.