Christie Owen & Davies Plc v Walton [2008] ScotCS CSOH_37 (22 February 2008)

Christie Owen & Davies Plc v Walton [2008] ScotCS CSOH_37 (22 February 2008)

The restrictive covenants, when properly construed, are limited to the care sector and to business and customers with whom the defender had material involvement. The prohibitions are reasonable in scope, time, and geography to protect the pursuers' legitimate business interests. The balance of convenience favours maintaining the interim interdict and granting the interim order for delivery.

Citation
[2008] ScotCS CSOH_37
Parties
Pursuer: Christie Owen & Davies Plc; Defender: Gary Walton
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Interim Interdict and Delivery Order Application / Interim Hearing on Recall of Interim Interdict and Order for Delivery
Outcome
Interim interdict maintained; interim order for delivery granted
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Confidential Information, Breach of Contract, Interim Interdict, Restraint of Trade
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Confidential Information Breach of Contract Interim Interdict Restraint of Trade

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christie Owen & Davies Plc

Pursuer

Gary Walton

Defender

Procedural Posture

Interim Interdict and Delivery Order Application / Interim Hearing on Recall of Interim Interdict and Order for Delivery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restrictive covenants in the defender's employment contract are reasonable and enforceable
  2. 2 Whether the interim interdict against the defender should be recalled
  3. 3 Whether the pursuers are entitled to an interim order for delivery of documents and property

Ratio Decidendi

The restrictive covenants, when properly construed, are limited to the care sector and to business and customers with whom the defender had material involvement. The prohibitions are reasonable in scope, time, and geography to protect the pursuers' legitimate business interests. The balance of convenience favours maintaining the interim interdict and granting the interim order for delivery.

Court Disposition

Interim interdict maintained; interim order for delivery granted

Orders

  • Refusal of motion to recall interim interdict
  • Grant of interim order for delivery of documents and property in terms of conclusion 1 of the summons