CPA -v- Keogh and De St Paer [2015] JRC 091 (05 May 2015)

CPA -v- Keogh and De St Paer [2015] JRC 091 (05 May 2015)

The interim injunctions were set aside because they were granted ex parte without sufficient justification for dispensing with notice. On the merits, CPA failed to demonstrate that the non-compete covenants were likely to be enforceable, as it did not sufficiently identify confidential information or trade secrets justifying the restraint. The covenants appeared to be aimed at preventing competition rather than protecting legitimate business interests. Therefore, it would be unjust to re-impose the injunctions pending trial.

Citation
[2015] JRC 091
Parties
Plaintiff: CPA Limited; First Defendant: Mr Keogh; Second Defendant: Mrs De St Paer
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
05 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Set Aside Interim Injunctions
Outcome
interim injunctions set aside
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Non Compete Covenants, Confidential Information, Interim Injunctions
Employment Law Contract Law Restraint of Trade Non Compete Covenants 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CPA Limited

Plaintiff

Mr Keogh

First Defendant

Mrs De St Paer

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Set Aside Interim Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim injunctions obtained ex parte should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether the non-compete covenants in the defendants' employment contracts are likely to be enforceable
  3. 3 Whether CPA has legitimate interests justifying the restraint of trade

Ratio Decidendi

The interim injunctions were set aside because they were granted ex parte without sufficient justification for dispensing with notice. On the merits, CPA failed to demonstrate that the non-compete covenants were likely to be enforceable, as it did not sufficiently identify confidential information or trade secrets justifying the restraint. The covenants appeared to be aimed at preventing competition rather than protecting legitimate business interests. Therefore, it would be unjust to re-impose the injunctions pending trial.

Court Disposition

interim injunctions set aside

Orders

  • The interim injunctions against Mr Keogh and Mrs De St Paer are lifted.
  • No re-imposition of interim injunctions pending trial.