Joe Walker (Capital Business) Ltd v Stuart [1998] ScotCS 105 (18 December 1998)

Joe Walker (Capital Business) Ltd v Stuart [1998] ScotCS 105 (18 December 1998)

The petitioners failed to demonstrate on a prima facie basis that the restrictive covenants and confidentiality clauses were incorporated into the respondents' contracts of employment. Additionally, the averments did not provide a sufficient basis for a reasonable apprehension of breach. The balance of convenience did not favour the petitioners, as granting interim interdict would likely prevent the respondents from earning their living in their field.

Citation
[1998] ScotCS 105
Parties
Petitioner: Joe Walker (Capital Business) Ltd; Respondent: Hugh MacBean Stuart; Respondent: Andrew George Lloyd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 December 1998
Procedural Posture
Petition for Interdict and Interim Interdict / Interim Interdict Application
Outcome
Motions for interim interdict refused
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Non Solicitation Clauses, Confidentiality, Employment Contracts, Interim Interdicts
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Non Solicitation Clauses Confidentiality Employment Contracts Interim Interdicts

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joe Walker (Capital Business) Ltd

Petitioner

Hugh MacBean Stuart

Respondent

Andrew George Lloyd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition for Interdict and Interim Interdict / Interim Interdict Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether restrictive covenants and confidentiality clauses were incorporated into respondents' contracts of employment
  2. 2 Whether there was a reasonable apprehension of breach of those clauses by the respondents
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting interim interdict

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioners failed to demonstrate on a prima facie basis that the restrictive covenants and confidentiality clauses were incorporated into the respondents' contracts of employment. Additionally, the averments did not provide a sufficient basis for a reasonable apprehension of breach. The balance of convenience did not favour the petitioners, as granting interim interdict would likely prevent the respondents from earning their living in their field.

Court Disposition

Motions for interim interdict refused