The claimant sought to enforce post employment contracts against the defendant. One issue was whether or not business cards that had been given to the employee in the course of his employment, as well as cards that were already in his possession and which he brought with him at the start of his employment, were the property of the employer.
Held: The cards, including those in the latter category, were the property of the employer. The employee had effectively given the cards that he had brought with him to the employer by using them for the purpose of carrying out his work. Mr Susman submitted that no relevant distinction can be made between a collection of business cards amassed on behalf of a company and a collection of e-mails received and sent on behalf of a company. But that submission begs the question. Judge Seymour’s decision does not assist in determining whether or not the content of an e-mail is to be regarded as property.
Judges:
HH Judge Richard Seymour QC
Citations:
[2008] EWHC 1080 (QB)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Office Angels Ltd v Rainer-Thomas CA 1991
Reasonability Test of Post Employment Restriction
The court re-stated the principles applicable in testing whether an employee’s restrictive covenant was reasonable: ‘The court cannot say that a covenant in one form affords no more than adequate protection to a covenantee’s relevant legitimate . .
Cited by:
Cited – Fairstar Heavy Transport Nv v Adkins and Another CA 19-Jul-2013
The court was asked whether the appellant company was entitled to an order requiring its former Chief Executive Officer, after the termination of his appointment, to give it access to the content of emails relating to its business affairs, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Information
Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268694