BlueBell Apparel Ltd v Dickinson [1977] ScotCS CSIH_4 (14 October 1977)

BlueBell Apparel Ltd v Dickinson [1977] ScotCS CSIH_4 (14 October 1977)

The restriction prohibiting the respondent from employment with a competitor anywhere in the world and in any capacity for two years is not prima facie unreasonable, given the risk of disclosure of trade secrets and the petitioners' global operations. The balance of convenience favours enforcement of the restriction by interim interdict.

Citation
[1977] ScotCS CSIH_4
Parties
Petitioner: BlueBell Apparel Ltd; Respondent: Dickinson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 October 1977
Procedural Posture
Petition for Interdict / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Partial Recall of Interim Interdict
Outcome
interim interdict restored
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Trade Secrets, Confidential Information, Interim Interdict
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Trade Secrets Confidential Information Interim Interdict

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BlueBell Apparel Ltd

Petitioner

Dickinson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition for Interdict / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Partial Recall of Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restrictive covenant in the Security Agreement is reasonable and enforceable
  2. 2 Whether world-wide and all-capacity restriction is justified
  3. 3 Whether interim interdict should be restored against employment with competitor

Ratio Decidendi

The restriction prohibiting the respondent from employment with a competitor anywhere in the world and in any capacity for two years is not prima facie unreasonable, given the risk of disclosure of trade secrets and the petitioners' global operations. The balance of convenience favours enforcement of the restriction by interim interdict.

Court Disposition

interim interdict restored

Orders

  • Interim interdict pronounced prohibiting respondent from continuing in employment with Levi Strauss & Co. either in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in the world for a period of two years.
  • Interim interdict against disclosure of trade secrets by respondent remains in force.