The court considered the grant of ‘springboard relief’ and said: ‘In my judgment, springboard relief is not confined to cases where former employees threaten to abuse confidential information acquired during the currency of their employment. It is available to prevent any future or further serious economic loss to a previous employer caused by former staff members taking an unfair advantage, an ‘unfair start’, of any serious breaches of their contract of employment . . That unfair advantage must still exist at the time that the injunction is sought, and it must be shown that it would continue unless restrained. I accept that injunctions are to protect against and to prevent future and further losses and must not be used merely to punish past breaches of contract.’ and
‘There is some discussion in the authorities as to whether springboard relief is limited to cases where there is a misuse of confidential information. Such a limitation was expressly rejected in Midas IT Services v Opus Portfolio Limited, an unreported decision of Blackburne J . . in 1999, although it seems to have been accepted by Scott J in Balston Limited v Headline Filters Limited [1987] FSR 330 at 340.’ and ‘In my judgment, springboard relief is not confined to cases where former employees threaten to abuse confidential information . . It is available to prevent any future or further serious economic loss . . caused by former staff members taking an unfair advantage, an ‘unfair start’, of any serious breaches of their contract of employment.’
Judges:
Openshaw J
Citations:
[2008] EWHC 1974 (QB), [2008] IRLR 965
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – G D Searle and Co Ltd v Celltech Ltd CA 1982
The court was asked as to an employee’s covenant now said to be in restraint of trade.
Held: In disputes between employers and ex-employees courts will usually seek to protect the rights of employees to advance their chosen trade and . .
Cited – Balston Ltd v Headline Filters Ltd and Another 1987
The second defendant, whilst still during his notice period to leave employment by the plaintiff, began to make arrangements to start his own competing business, and solicited future business from a customer of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought an . .
Cited by:
Adopted – Dass Solicitors v Southcott ChD 2-Apr-2009
The claimant solicitors said that the defendant employed solicitor had sought to leave without giving the required three months’ notice and had sought to persuade clients of the firm to go to his new practice. Application was made on a without . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Employment
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.277900