RICHARD BISHOP against 3i INVESTMENTS PLC [2015] ScotCS CSIH_66 (11 September 2015)

RICHARD BISHOP against 3i INVESTMENTS PLC [2015] ScotCS CSIH_66 (11 September 2015)

BGF and 3i operated in distinct investment sectors and bandings, with no actual or deemed competition; the contractual definition of 'competing leaver' must be assessed at the time of leaving employment, and interpreted in context with commercial common sense, resulting in the pursuer not being a competing leaver.

Citation
[2015] ScotCS CSIH_66
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Richard Bishop; Defenders and Reclaimers: 3i Investments PLC
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action / Appeal (reclaiming Motion)
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; Lord Ordinary's decision affirmed.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Partnership Agreements, Competing Leaver Provisions, Employee Incentives, Restrictive Covenants
Contract Law Employment Law Commercial Law Interpretation of Partnership Agreements Competing Leaver Provisions Employee Incentives Restrictive Covenants

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Bishop

Pursuer and Respondent

3i Investments PLC

Defenders and Reclaimers

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action / Appeal (reclaiming Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer was a 'competing leaver' under the limited partnership agreements
  2. 2 Proper construction of 'competing leaver' definition
  3. 3 Relevance of investment banding and market sector to competition

Ratio Decidendi

BGF and 3i operated in distinct investment sectors and bandings, with no actual or deemed competition; the contractual definition of 'competing leaver' must be assessed at the time of leaving employment, and interpreted in context with commercial common sense, resulting in the pursuer not being a competing leaver.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; Lord Ordinary's decision affirmed.

Orders

  • Declarator granted that pursuer is an ordinary leaver, not a competing leaver.
  • Remitted to Lord Ordinary for quantification of pursuer's claim.