OPINION OF LORD MATTHEWS IN THE CAUSE SKIPTON FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD AGAINST PAUL ALLAN [2014] ScotCS CSOH_106 (01 July 2014)

OPINION OF LORD MATTHEWS IN THE CAUSE SKIPTON FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD AGAINST PAUL ALLAN [2014] ScotCS CSOH_106 (01 July 2014)

The court preferred the petitioner's interpretation of 'Relevant Products or Services', finding that the respondent's dealings with former customers constituted a prima facie breach of non-solicitation and non-dealing obligations, but not of confidentiality or trade secrets. The balance of convenience favoured granting interim interdict to protect the petitioner's business interests.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSOH_106
Parties
Petitioner: Skipton Financial Services Ltd; Respondent: Paul Allan
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Petition for Interdict / Interim Interdict Hearing
Outcome
interim interdict granted in part
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Non Solicitation, Confidentiality, Trade Secrets
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Non Solicitation Confidentiality Trade Secrets

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Skipton Financial Services Ltd

Petitioner

Paul Allan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition for Interdict / Interim Interdict Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Interpretation of restrictive covenants in employment contract
  2. 2 Whether respondent breached non-solicitation and non-dealing obligations
  3. 3 Whether respondent used confidential information or trade secrets

Ratio Decidendi

The court preferred the petitioner's interpretation of 'Relevant Products or Services', finding that the respondent's dealings with former customers constituted a prima facie breach of non-solicitation and non-dealing obligations, but not of confidentiality or trade secrets. The balance of convenience favoured granting interim interdict to protect the petitioner's business interests.

Court Disposition

interim interdict granted in part

Orders

  • Interim interdict granted in terms of part (i) of the prayer (non-solicitation and non-dealing obligations)
  • Interim interdict refused in relation to part (ii) (confidentiality/trade secrets)