Living Design (Home Improvements) Ltd, Re Application For Interim Interdict [1999] ScotCS 56 (19 February 1999)

Living Design (Home Improvements) Ltd, Re Application For Interim Interdict [1999] ScotCS 56 (19 February 1999)

The petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case that the respondent was in breach of the restrictive covenant, as the information allegedly at risk did not amount to trade secrets or highly confidential material, and the restriction was not shown to be reasonably necessary. The balance of convenience favoured the respondent, as there was insufficient evidence of actual or potential harm justifying interim interdict.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 56
Parties
Petitioner: Living Design (Home Improvements) Limited; Respondent: [Name not specified] (the respondent)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 February 1999
Procedural Posture
Petition for Interdict and Interim Interdict / Interim Relief Application
Outcome
Interim interdict refused
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Non Compete Clauses, Confidential Information, Interim Interdicts
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Non Compete Clauses Confidential Information 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Living Design (Home Improvements) Limited

Petitioner

[Name not specified] (the respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition for Interdict and Interim Interdict / Interim Relief Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent breached a post-employment restrictive covenant by working for a competitor within the defined territory and period
  2. 2 Whether the restrictive covenant is enforceable and reasonably necessary to protect the petitioner's legitimate business interests
  3. 3 Whether interim interdict should be granted based on the balance of convenience

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case that the respondent was in breach of the restrictive covenant, as the information allegedly at risk did not amount to trade secrets or highly confidential material, and the restriction was not shown to be reasonably necessary. The balance of convenience favoured the respondent, as there was insufficient evidence of actual or potential harm justifying interim interdict.

Court Disposition

Interim interdict refused

Orders

  • Motion for interim interdict refused