International Computers Ltd v Eccleson & Ors [2000] ScotCS 245 (31 August 2000)

International Computers Ltd v Eccleson & Ors [2000] ScotCS 245 (31 August 2000)

The petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for interdict because the confidentiality clause was unreasonably wide, applied without time limit, and the interim interdicts were too vague and unspecific to be enforceable. The interdicts did not specify the information to be protected, leaving the respondents uncertain as to what was prohibited. The clause also allowed the petitioner to unilaterally classify information as protected without objective standards.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 245
Parties
Petitioner: International Computers Limited; Respondent: Kenneth Eccleson; Respondent: Kenneth Gordon; Respondent: Steven Street
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
31 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Petition for Interdict (injunction) / Hearing on Motions to Recall Interim Interdicts
Outcome
Interim interdicts recalled (set aside)
Legal Topics
Confidentiality Clauses, Restrictive Covenants, Interim Interdicts, Reasonableness of Contractual Restraints
Employment Law Contract Law Confidentiality Clauses Restrictive Covenants Interim Interdicts Reasonableness of Contractual Restraints

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

International Computers Limited

Petitioner

Kenneth Eccleson

Respondent

Kenneth Gordon

Respondent

Steven Street

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition for Interdict (injunction) / Hearing on Motions to Recall Interim Interdicts

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the confidentiality clause in the employment contract is enforceable post-employment without a time limit
  2. 2 Whether the interim interdicts are too vague and wide to be enforceable
  3. 3 Whether the petitioner has established a prima facie case for interdict

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for interdict because the confidentiality clause was unreasonably wide, applied without time limit, and the interim interdicts were too vague and unspecific to be enforceable. The interdicts did not specify the information to be protected, leaving the respondents uncertain as to what was prohibited. The clause also allowed the petitioner to unilaterally classify information as protected without objective standards.

Court Disposition

Interim interdicts recalled (set aside)

Orders

  • Recall of interim interdicts granted on 26 January 2000