header-logo header-logo

07 October 2016
Issue: 7717 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Employee

Gamatronic (UK) Ltd and another v Hamilton and another [2016] EWHC 2225 (QB), [2016] All ER (D) 09 (Oct)

The Queen’s Bench Division held, among other things, that the defendant former directors and employees of, and shareholders in, the first claimant company had, to some extent, breached fiduciary duties owed to it and they had breached contractual duties owed under the terms of their employment agreements by assisting in setting up, and acquiring a beneficial interest in, a competing business (Vox). However, the evidence did not establish that the defendants had failed to dedicate proper time and attention to their work for the first claimant. Accordingly, the claimant was not entitled to salary payments received by the defendants from the claimant or Vox.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

DWF—11 appointments

DWF—11 appointments

DWF strengthens North West teams with 11 newly qualified solicitors

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll