MESSRS. J AND E SHEPHERD v. PAUL DAVID LETLEY [2012] ScotSC 43 (28 March 2012)

MESSRS. J AND E SHEPHERD v. PAUL DAVID LETLEY [2012] ScotSC 43 (28 March 2012)

The averments in the pleadings, particularly in Articles 5, 6, and 7 of Condescendence, if proved, could amount to a breach of the interdict. The issues of relevancy and whether the defender's actions constituted canvassing or soliciting cannot be resolved without inquiry. Proof before answer is appropriate on the whole averments.

Citation
[2012] ScotSC 43
Parties
Pursuer: Messrs J & E Shepherd; Defender: Paul David Letley
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Summary Application for Breach of Interdict / Preliminary Pleas; Proof Before Answer Allowed
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed; preliminary pleas reserved; expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Breach of Interdict, Restrictive Covenants, Soliciting Clients, Partnership Law, Contempt of Court
Civil Procedure Contract Law Employment Law Breach of Interdict Restrictive Covenants Soliciting Clients Partnership Law Contempt of Court

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Messrs J & E Shepherd

Pursuer

Paul David Letley

Defender

Procedural Posture

Summary Application for Breach of Interdict / Preliminary Pleas; Proof Before Answer Allowed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender breached the terms of an interim interdict prohibiting canvassing or soliciting clients of the pursuers with whom he had dealings during the partnership period.
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings disclose sufficient averments of breach to justify proof.
  3. 3 Interpretation of 'canvassing' and 'soliciting' in the context of restrictive covenants and interdicts.

Ratio Decidendi

The averments in the pleadings, particularly in Articles 5, 6, and 7 of Condescendence, if proved, could amount to a breach of the interdict. The issues of relevancy and whether the defender's actions constituted canvassing or soliciting cannot be resolved without inquiry. Proof before answer is appropriate on the whole averments.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed; preliminary pleas reserved; expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Allows parties a proof of their respective averments.
  • Reserves all questions of expenses.