INFORMA UK LIMITED AGAINST FRASER McDOUGALL FOR INTERDICT AND INTERDICT AD INTERIM AGAINST THE RESPONDENT [2017] ScotCS CSOH_149 (05 December 2017)

INFORMA UK LIMITED AGAINST FRASER McDOUGALL FOR INTERDICT AND INTERDICT AD INTERIM AGAINST THE RESPONDENT [2017] ScotCS CSOH_149 (05 December 2017)

The petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for interim interdict based on Clause 1.4, as the clause's wording 'be employed by' is more likely to be interpreted in its natural sense, not encompassing partnership. The balance of convenience does not favour granting interim interdict given the protections already afforded by Clauses 1.1 to 1.3 and the lack of clarity regarding harm.

Citation
[2017] ScotCS CSOH_149
Parties
Petitioner: Informa UK Limited; Respondent: Fraser McDougall
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Petition for Interdict and Interdict Ad Interim / Motion for Interim Interdict
Outcome
motion for interim interdict refused
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Non Compete Clauses, Interpretation of Employment Contracts
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Non Compete Clauses Interpretation of Employment Contracts

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Informa UK Limited

Petitioner

Fraser McDougall

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition for Interdict and Interdict Ad Interim / Motion for Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Clause 1.4 of the employment contract prohibits the respondent from joining a competitor as a partner rather than as an employee
  2. 2 Whether the restrictive covenant is reasonably necessary to protect the petitioner’s legitimate business interests
  3. 3 Interpretation of 'be employed by' in the context of the contract

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for interim interdict based on Clause 1.4, as the clause's wording 'be employed by' is more likely to be interpreted in its natural sense, not encompassing partnership. The balance of convenience does not favour granting interim interdict given the protections already afforded by Clauses 1.1 to 1.3 and the lack of clarity regarding harm.

Court Disposition

motion for interim interdict refused