Sundolitt Ltd v Addison [2017] ScotCS CSIH_15 (17 February 2017)

Sundolitt Ltd v Addison [2017] ScotCS CSIH_15 (17 February 2017)

The restrictive covenant relied upon by the pursuer was too wide in scope and duration to be enforceable, even accepting the pursuer's characterisation of the business context. The Lord Ordinary did not err in her assessment of the prima facie case or the balance of convenience. The reclaiming motion is refused.

Citation
[2017] ScotCS CSIH_15
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: Sundolitt Limited; Defender and Respondent: Paul Addison
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Interlocutor Recalling Interim Interdict / Appellate Review of Interim Interdict Decision
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary stands.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Interim Interdict, Enforceability of Restraint of Trade, Confidential Information, Balance of Convenience
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Interim Interdict Enforceability of Restraint of Trade Confidential Information Balance of Convenience

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

Parties

Sundolitt Limited

Pursuer and Reclaimer

Paul Addison

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Interlocutor Recalling Interim Interdict / Appellate Review of Interim Interdict Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restrictive covenant in the employment contract is enforceable as a matter of public policy
  2. 2 Whether the interim interdict should be reinstated pending final determination
  3. 3 Whether the Lord Ordinary erred in assessing the pursuer's prima facie case and the balance of convenience

Ratio Decidendi

The restrictive covenant relied upon by the pursuer was too wide in scope and duration to be enforceable, even accepting the pursuer's characterisation of the business context. The Lord Ordinary did not err in her assessment of the prima facie case or the balance of convenience. The reclaiming motion is refused.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary stands.

Orders

  • Refusal to recall the third interdict (confidential information) is upheld.
  • Recall of the first and second interim interdicts (non-solicitation and non-dealing) is upheld.