The claimant sought to continue an interim injunction obtained without notice. The claimant sought to restrain former employees misusing information it claimed they had taken with them. The claimants said that having objected to a transfer of their employments they had not become employees of the claimant.
Held: Where an employee did not know the identity of a transferee company until after the transfer, it would go against the employees right to choose an employer to bind him to the contract with the new employer. The defendants had resigned within two days of being notified of the transfer. The court considered the balance of convenience arguments. Neither side would be adequately compensated by damages or an undertaking for them. However there had been delay in commencing the proceedings and that led to the injunctions being discharged.
Judges:
Behrens QC J
Citations:
[2007] EWHC 2665 (Ch)
Links:
Statutes:
Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 4(6)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Katsikas and others v Konstantinidis and others ECJ 16-Dec-1992
ECJ Article 3(1) of Directive 77/187 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings is to be interpreted as not . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Cook and others EAT 13-Dec-1996
Employees who are otherwise qualified employees will transfer with their undertaking even though they are unaware of the identity of their new employer. Morison J considered the situation where there was a transfer of the undertaking, but the . .
Cited – Humphreys v Oxford University CA 18-Jan-2000
In a transfer of undertakings, where the employee could show that the transfer of his employment to a new employer would lead to a real detriment, the transfer operated to entitle the employee to terminate his contract vis a vis the first employer . .
Cited – Arbuthnot Fund Managers Ltd v Rawlings CA 13-Mar-2003
Post-termination restraints in a service agreement. . .
Cited – Hay v George Hanson 1996
Lord Johnston said: ‘We would pause to reflect that if the withholding of consent is, as we think it is, the proper consideration, it should not be difficult in most cases to distinguish between such withholding of consent and mere expressions of . .
Cited – Townsend v Jarman 1900
A partner gave a covenant not to carry on the business of a corn, seed or manure merchant or nurseryman within a distance of 40 miles from Chard. The partners sold the business to a company, of which they remained directors. It was wound up, and the . .
Cited – American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd HL 5-Feb-1975
Interim Injunctions in Patents Cases
The plaintiffs brought proceedings for infringement of their patent. The proceedings were defended. The plaintiffs obtained an interim injunction to prevent the defendants infringing their patent, but they now appealed its discharge by the Court of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Information, Employment
Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.261463